National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program, 325-393 [2014-30085]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 2
January 5, 2015
Part III
Department of Transportation
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 490
National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
326
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 490
[Docket No. FHWA–2013–0053]
RIN 2125–AF53
National Performance Management
Measures; Assessing Pavement
Condition for the National Highway
Performance Program and Bridge
Condition for the National Highway
Performance Program
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); request for comments.
AGENCY:
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 decisionmaking
through performance-based planning
and programming. Section 1203 of
MAP–21 identifies the national
transportation goals and requires the
Secretary to promulgate a rule to
establish performance measures in
specified Federal-aid highway program
areas. The FHWA is issuing three
separate NPRMs to meet this
requirement, and this is the second
NPRM.
This NPRM proposes to establish
measures for State Departments of
Transportation (State DOTs) to use to
carry out the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) and to
assess the condition of the following:
pavements on the National Highway
System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate
System), bridges on the NHS, and
pavements on the Interstate System. The
NHPP is a core Federal-aid highway
program that provides support for the
condition and performance of the NHS
and the construction of new facilities on
the NHS, and ensures that investments
of Federal-aid funds in highway
construction are directed to support
progress toward the achievement of
performance targets established in a
State’s asset management plan for the
NHS. This NPRM proposes regulations
for the new performance aspects of the
NHPP, which address: measures, targets,
and reporting. The FHWA intends to
make these performance aspects of the
NHPP available to the public in a format
that is easily understandable and
accessible for download.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
This second NPRM also includes a
discussion of the collective rulemaking
actions FHWA has or intends to take to
implement MAP–21 performancerelated provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 6, 2015. Late comments
will be considered to the extent
practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number FHWA
USDOT–2013–0053 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–AF53). Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
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 20590, 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–
0001. 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 has other rulemaking efforts
underway to establish the measures
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c). The
first performance measure NPRM
covered the proposed performance
management measures to carry out the
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) and to assess serious injuries and
fatalities per vehicle mile traveled
(VMT), and the number of serious
injuries and fatalities. That NPRM was
published on March 11, 2014 (79 FR
13846). The third performance measure
NPRM will focus on measures for the
performance of the NHS, the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program, and
freight movement on the Interstate
System. 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 current NPRM also proposes:
The additional definitions that would be
applicable to the proposed regulations;
the process State DOTs and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) would use to establish
performance targets that reflect the
measures proposed in this rulemaking;
and the methodology State DOTs would
use to assess compliance with the target
achievement provision specified in
MAP–21. The NPRM also proposes the
process State DOTs would follow to
report on progress toward the
achievement of pavement and bridge
condition-related performance targets.
Finally, this NPRM proposes minimum
levels for pavement and conditions on
the Interstate System.
Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. 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
IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background
V. Performance Management Measure
Analysis
A. Selection of National Performance
Management Measures for the NHPP:
Pavement and Bridge
B. Assessment of Selected Measures for the
NHPP: Pavement and Bridge
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the
General Information and Proposed
National Performance Management
Measures for the NHPP: Pavement and
Bridge
VII. 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
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
program by establishing new
requirements for performance
management to ensure the most efficient
investment of Federal transportation
funds. Performance management
increases the accountability and
transparency of the Federal-aid highway
program and provides for a framework
to support improved investment
decision making through a focus on
performance outcomes for key national
transportation goals. As part of
performance management, recipients of
Federal-aid highway funds would make
transportation investments to achieve
performance targets that make progress
towards national goals. The national
performance goal for bridge and
pavement condition is to maintain the
condition of highway infrastructure
assets in a state of good repair. The
purpose of this rulemaking is to
implement these MAP–21 performance
management requirements.
Prior to MAP–21, there were no
explicit requirements for State DOTs to
demonstrate that their transportation
program supported national
performance outcomes. State DOTs were
not required to measure condition, to
establish targets, to assess progress
towards targets, or to report on
pavement and bridge condition in a
nationally consistent manner that
FHWA could use to assess the condition
of the entire system. It was also difficult
for FHWA to look at the effectiveness of
the Federal-aid highway program as a
means to address surface transportation
performance at a national level.
This proposed rule is one of several
rulemakings that DOT is or will be
conducting to implement MAP–21’s
new performance management
framework. The collective rulemakings
would establish the regulations needed
to more effectively evaluate and report
on surface transportation performance
across the country. This rulemaking
proposes regulations that would:
provide for greater consistency in the
reporting of pavement and bridge
conditions; require the establishment of
targets that can be aggregated at the
national level; require reporting in a
consistent manner on progress
achievement; and lastly require State
DOTs to make significant progress. It
would also require State DOTs to
maintain their bridges and pavements at
or above a minimum condition level.
State DOTs would be expected to use
the information and data generated as a
result of the new regulations to better
inform their transportation planning
and programming decisionmaking. The
new performance aspects of the Federalaid program that would result from this
rulemaking would provide FHWA the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
ability to better communicate a national
performance story and to more reliably
assess the impacts of Federal funding
investments.
The FHWA is required to establish
measures through a rulemaking to assess
performance in 12 areas generalized as
follows: (1) Serious injuries per 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; 1 (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.2
This rulemaking is the second of three
NPRMs that together propose the
establishment of performance measures
for States 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 national measures for areas 5,
6, and 7, in the above list. Other
rulemakings would establish national
measures for the remaining areas in the
above list. This NPRM proposes to
establish performance measures to
assess pavement and bridge conditions
on the Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS for the purpose of
carrying out the NHPP. The four
proposed measures to assess pavement
condition are: (1) Percentage of
pavements on the Interstate System in
Good condition; (2) Percentage of
pavements on the Interstate System in
Poor condition; (3) Percentage of
pavements on the NHS (excluding the
Interstate System) in Good condition;
and (4) a Percentage of pavements on
the NHS (excluding the Interstate
System) in Poor condition. The two
proposed performance measures for
assessing bridge condition are: (1)
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as
in Good Condition; and (2) Percentage
of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor
Condition.
This NPRM also proposes to establish
the minimum level for pavement
condition for the Interstate System as
required by the statute. In addition, this
NPRM proposes to establish the process
for State DOTs and MPOs to use to
establish and report targets and the
process that FHWA will use to assess
progress State DOTs have made in
achieving targets.
1 ‘‘Non-Interstate NHS’’ and ‘‘NHS (excluding the
Interstate)’’ are used interchangeably throughout
this NPRM and have the same meaning.
2 These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c),
which requires the Secretary to establish measures
to assess performance or condition.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
327
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Regulatory Action in Question
The FHWA proposes the
establishment of: Performance measures
to be used by State DOTs to assess the
condition of pavements and bridges and
to carry out the NHPP; the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to establish
targets for each of the measures; the
methodology to determine whether
State DOTs have achieved their targets;
the process for State DOTs to use to
report on progress for targets; and the
minimum levels for pavement
conditions on the Interstate System for
purposes of carrying out 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1). The FHWA also proposes to
incorporate the minimum level for
condition of bridges on the NHS as
required by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
This NPRM proposes to add to
subpart A general information
applicable to Part 490, to include
requirements for target establishment,
reporting on progress, and how
determinations would be made on
whether State DOTs have made
significant progress toward NHPP
targets. Subpart A also would include
definitions and clarify terminology
associated with target establishment,
reporting, and making significant
progress. Subparts C and D propose
performance measures to assess
pavement and bridge conditions.
Section 490.105 proposes the process to
be used by State DOTs and MPOs to
establish targets for each of the four
pavement and two bridge measures. The
State DOTs would establish 2- and 4year targets for a 4-year performance
period for the condition of
infrastructure assets. State DOTs would
establish their first statewide targets 1
year after the effective date of this rule.
The MPOs would establish targets by
either supporting the State DOT’s
statewide target, or defining a target
unique to the metropolitan area each
time the State DOT establishes a target.
The MPOs would be provided a 180-day
period following the date at which the
State DOT establishes a target to
establish their pavement and bridge
targets.
Section 490.107 proposes
performance reporting for State DOTs
and MPOs. The State DOT would
submit their established targets in a
baseline report at the beginning of the
performance period and report progress
at the midpoint and end of the
performance period. State DOTs would
be allowed to adjust their 4-year target
at the midpoint of the performance
period. The MPOs would not be
required to provide separate reporting to
FHWA; however, State DOTs and MPOs
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
328
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
would need to agree to a target
establishment reporting process in the
Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in
accordance with 23 CFR part 450.
Section 490.109 proposes the method
FHWA would use to determine if State
DOTs have achieved or have made
significant progress toward the
achievement of their NHPP targets.
Significant progress would be
determined from an analysis of
estimated performance/condition and
measured performance/condition of
each of the NHPP targets. If applicable,
State DOTs would have the opportunity
to discuss why targets were not
achieved or significant progress was not
made. If a State DOT fails to achieve
significant progress for two consecutive
biennial performance reporting periods
(total of 4 years), then the State DOT is
required to document in their next
biennial performance report and
encouraged to document sooner, the
actions they will undertake to achieve
their targets.
In subparts C and D, §§ 490.305 and
490.405 propose the pavement and
bridge performance measures and
program-specific definitions to ensure
that the proposed performance measures
are clear and consistent.
Sections 490.307 and 490.407 propose
that State DOTs and MPOs use a total
of six measures to assess the condition
of pavements and bridges on the NHS.
The proposed pavement measures
would be applicable to both Interstate
and non-Interstate NHS mainline roads
and the proposed bridge measures
would be applicable for all NHS bridges,
including bridges on ramps that connect
to NHS. Both the pavement and bridge
measures would reflect the percentage
of the system in good and poorp
condition. The measure calculations
would utilize data documented in the
Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) and in the National
Bridge Inventory (NBI).
Section 490.315 proposes the
minimum level for condition of
pavements on the Interstate System as
required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
Section 490.411 proposes to
incorporate the minimum level for
condition of bridges as required by 23
U.S.C 119(f)(2).
C. Costs and Benefits
The FHWA estimated the incremental
costs associated with the new
requirements proposed in this
regulatory action that represent a change
to current practices for State DOTs and
MPOs.3 The FHWA derived the costs of
components by assessing the expected
increase in level of effort from labor and
additional capital needed to standardize
and update State DOT data collection
and reporting systems as well as the
increase in level of effort from labor to
establish and report targets. The FHWA
sought opinions from pavement and
bridge Subject Matter Experts (SME) to
estimate impacts of the proposed rule.
Cost estimates were developed based on
assumptions informed by information
received from SMEs.
To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied
the level of effort, expressed in labor
hours, with a corresponding loaded
wage rate that varied by the type of
laborer needed to perform the activity.4
Where necessary, capital costs were
included as well. Following this
approach, the 10-year undiscounted
incremental costs to comply with this
rule are $196.4 million.
The FHWA expects that, upon
implementation, the proposed rule
would result in some significant
benefits, although they are not easily
quantifiable. Specifically, FHWA
expects this proposed rule to result in
improved pavement and bridge
condition-related project, program, and
policy choices. The proposed rule also
would yield greater accountability for
recipients of Federal funding because
MAP–21-mandated reporting would
increase visibility and transparency. In
addition, the proposed rule would help
focus the Federal-aid highway program
on achieving balanced performance
outcomes.
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 the benefits, FHWA used a
break-even analysis as the primary
approach to quantify benefits. For both
pavements and bridges, FHWA focused
its break-even analysis on Vehicle
Operating Costs (VOC) savings. The
FHWA estimated the number of road
miles of deficient pavement that would
have to be improved (Table 8 in Section
VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices)
and the number of posted bridges that
would have to be avoided (Table 9 in
Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and
Notices) in order for the benefits of the
rule to justify the costs. The results of
the break-even analysis quantified the
dollar value of the benefits that the
proposed rule must generate to
outweigh the threshold value, the
estimated cost of the proposed rule,
which is $196.4 million in
undiscounted dollars. The FHWA
believes that the proposed rule would
surpass this threshold and, as a result,
the benefits of the rule would outweigh
the costs. The below table displays the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) A–4 Accounting Statement as a
summary of the cost and benefits
calculated for this rule.
OMB A–4—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT
Estimates
Units
Category
Primary
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Benefits:
Annualized Monetized
($ millions/year).
Annualized Quantified
None
None
None
None
Low
.................
.................
.................
.................
3 See Table 7 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis
and Notices
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
None
None
None
None
.........
.........
.........
.........
High
None
None
None
None
Year dollar
.........
.........
.........
.........
NA
NA
NA
NA
Discount
rate
(percent)
.............
.............
.............
.............
Period
covered
7
3
7
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost
Index, 2012
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
................
................
................
................
Source/citation
Not Quantified.
Not Quantified.
329
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
OMB A–4—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—Continued
Estimates
Units
Category
Primary
Qualitative ...................
Low
High
Year dollar
Discount
rate
(percent)
Period
covered
Source/citation
With regard to the pavement condition measures, the rule is cost-beneficial if it results in
the net improvement of approximately 435 miles of pavement (i.e., from Poor condition to
Good) per year, or 4,350 miles over ten years, from its current base case projection. With
regard to the bridge condition measures, 0.2 year-long bridge postings would need to be
avoided per year, or 2 year-long bridge postings over ten years, in order for benefits to justify costs. Because of these low thresholds, FHWA determines that the proposed rule benefits outweigh the costs
Proposed Rule RIA.
Costs:
Annualized Monetized
($/year).
$21,233,675 .....
...................
...................
2012 ..........
7
10 Years ......
Proposed Rule RIA.
Annualized Quantified
$20,308,760 .....
None .................
None .................
...................
None .........
None .........
...................
None .........
None .........
2012 ..........
2012 ..........
2012 ..........
3
7
3
10 Years.
10 Years ......
10 Years ......
Proposed Rule RIA.
None.
From: ................
...................
...................
To:.
$21,162,705 .....
...................
...................
2012 ..........
7
10 Years ......
Proposed Rule RIA.
$20,241,409 .....
...................
...................
2012 ..........
3
10 Years.
NA .............
NA
Qualitative.
Transfers ............................
From/To .......................
Effects:
State, Local, and/or
Tribal Government.
Small Business ............
Not expected to have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
NA ................
Proposed Rule RIA.
II. Table of Acronyms and
Abbreviations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Acronym or abbreviation
Term
AASHTO ...............................................................................................
CFR .......................................................................................................
CMAQ ...................................................................................................
CRCP ....................................................................................................
DOT .......................................................................................................
State DOT .............................................................................................
E.O. .......................................................................................................
FHWA ....................................................................................................
FTA .......................................................................................................
HPMS ....................................................................................................
HSIP ......................................................................................................
HSP .......................................................................................................
IRI ..........................................................................................................
MAP–21 ................................................................................................
MPO ......................................................................................................
NARA ....................................................................................................
NBI ........................................................................................................
NBIS ......................................................................................................
NHPP ....................................................................................................
NCHRP .................................................................................................
NHS .......................................................................................................
NPRM ....................................................................................................
OMB. .....................................................................................................
PCCP or Jointed PCCP ........................................................................
PCI ........................................................................................................
PRA .......................................................................................................
PSR .......................................................................................................
RIA ........................................................................................................
RIN ........................................................................................................
RSL .......................................................................................................
Secretary ...............................................................................................
SHSP ....................................................................................................
TMA .......................................................................................................
U.S.C .....................................................................................................
VMT .......................................................................................................
VOCs .....................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Code of Federal Regulations.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.
U.S. Department of Transportation.
State department of transportation.
Executive Order.
Federal Highway Administration.
Federal Transit Administration.
Highway Performance Monitoring System.
Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Highway Safety Plan.
International Roughness Index.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
Metropolitan Planning Organization.
National Archives and Records Administration.
National Bridge Inventory.
National Bridge Inspection Standards.
National Highway Performance Program.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
National Highway System.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Office of Management and Budget.
Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.
Pavement Condition Index.
Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pavement Surface Rating.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Regulatory Identification Number.
Remaining Service Life.
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
Transportation Management Area.
United States Code.
Vehicle miles traveled.
Vehicle Operating Costs.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
330
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
III. Discussion of Stakeholder
Engagement and Outreach
In developing the NPRMs required by
23 U.S.C. 150(c), including this NPRM,
FHWA conducted outreach efforts to
obtain technical information as well as
information on operational and
economic impacts from stakeholders
and the public. The State DOTs, MPOs,
transit agencies, and private/non-profit
constituents across the country
participated in the outreach efforts. A
discussion of each contact or series of
contacts influencing the agency’s
position may be found in the docket. A
summary of the contacts are described
below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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:
• Conducting listening sessions and
workshops to clarify stakeholder
sentiment and capture diverse opinions
on the interpretation of technical
information of the potential economic
and operational impacts of
implementing 23 U.S.C. 150;
• Conducting 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;
• Hosting webinars with targeted
stakeholder audiences to ask for their
viewpoints through a chat pod or
conference call; and
• Attending meetings with non-DOT
SMEs, 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; and to
discuss and collect information on the
issues that need to be addressed or the
questions that need to be answered in
the NPRMs to facilitate efficient
implementation.
B. Broader Public Consultation
It is 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
stakeholder consultation discussed
above, DOT provided opportunities for
broader public participation. The DOT
invited 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
their comments and suggestions about
the development of the performance
measures and holding national online
dialogues and listening sessions to ask
the public to post their ideas on national
performance measures, standards, and
policies. The DOT 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), 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, FHWA will hold
public meetings to explain the
provisions contained in these NPRMs,
including this NPRM. All such meetings
will be open to the public. However, all
comments regarding the NPRMs must be
submitted in writing to the rulemaking
docket.
C. Summary of Viewpoints Received
This section summarizes some of the
common themes identified during the
stakeholder outreach. These themes are
organized by general concerns,
pavement condition measure concerns,
and bridge condition measure concerns.
It is important to note that some of the
stakeholder comments related to more
than one topic. In that case, the
comments were placed under whichever
theme was most directly affected.
General concerns:
• Stakeholders questioned how
FHWA would establish a methodology
for determining significant progress
toward achieving performance targets,
and commented on the administrative
burden on State DOTs and MPOs
associated with target establishment and
reporting.
• Stakeholders asked DOT to avoid
creating a ‘‘worst first’’ approach to
selecting priorities and requested that
FHWA consider using Asset
Management principles to consider
financial imbalances including the
concept that performance measures
should not drive the selection of
projects. Stakeholders would like
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
performance management to drive a
system-wide, risk-based project
selection approach that looks at longterm outcomes.
• The stakeholders’ key messages
were simplicity, consistency, and
flexibility.
Pavement Condition Measures
Stakeholders suggested various
analytic and empirical methods for
performance measurement. One of the
suggestions was to consider the use of
Remaining Service Life (RSL) as a
pavement performance measure.
Stakeholders expressed that an RSL
based approach to performance
management would help agencies
determine the timing and level of
rehabilitation activities. Currently, some
States DOTs have pavement and bridge
measures that relate to RSL. Other
suggested approaches for pavement
performance measures included the
Roadway Pavement Health Index 5 and
the Decay Ratio.6
Most stakeholders supported the use
of International Roughness Index (IRI)
as a pavement performance measure.
Some added that it should not be the
sole pavement performance measure
and that there are some limitations to its
ability to provide agencies sufficient
information for making investment
decisions. Those stakeholders that
support its use pointed to the long
history of IRI and its use in HPMS
protocols.
Bridge Condition Measures
Stakeholders supported establishing
bridge condition performance measures
using the existing NBI data. However,
stakeholders’ opinions differed on the
type of data to be used from the NBI and
the processing of that data. For example,
stakeholders were divided over the use
of the ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’
classification. Some stakeholders also
provided proprietary research
information on advanced bridge
condition assessment technologies and
how these technologies may be used to
reduce the number of structurally
deficient bridges used today as a
standard practice.
Some stakeholders commented that
simply measuring the physical
5 This propriety approach is intended to provide
State DOTs the ability to relate tradeoffs between
RSL, pavement management system data and life
cycle costs in years and dollar metrics. This
approach may not require changes to data collection
or classification but would cost time and money to
develop.
6 The Decay Ratio is the ratio of deck area of
bridges which have become newly deficient in the
past year to the deck area of bridges which have
been repaired/rehabilitated/replaced in the past
year. More simply, Decay Ratio = (Deck Area
Worse)/(Deck Area Improved).
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
331
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
condition of a bridge does not provide
a complete picture of the infrastructure
problems. In addition to the physical
condition, stakeholders suggested that
FHWA consider the cost of repair or
replacement and the importance of the
facility based upon how many vehicles
it served. However, others felt that
element-level bridge condition data,
which provides granularity, is necessary
to develop performance metrics that can
help States make better informed
decisions concerning their bridge
preservation needs.
In addition, stakeholders conveyed
other concerns regarding a proposed
bridge condition measure. They
believed FHWA should provide State
DOTs and MPOs flexibility to move
toward a national bridge performance
measure based on element-level data in
the near future and take into account
other factors such as population
changes. Stakeholders were also
concerned that expansion of the NHS to
include all principal arterial routes in a
State may impact a State DOT’s ability
to meet the minimum level for
condition of bridges. Some stakeholders
suggested that the measure established
for minimum standard of bridge
condition be consistent with definition
of ‘‘state of good repair’’ in the ‘‘Bridge
Preservation Guidance.’’ 7
IV. Rulemaking Authority and
Background
The cornerstone of MAP–21’s Federalaid highway program transformation is
the transition to a performance and
outcome-based program. As part of this
program, recipients of Federal-aid
highway funds would invest resources
in projects to achieve individual targets
that collectively would 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 the implementation of some
performance provisions related to the
NHPP. The FHWA is also undertaking a
rulemaking to implement new asset
management requirements (RIN 2125–
AF57) under the NHPP (23 U.S.C.119).
Interested persons should refer to both
rulemakings. Additional rulemakings
are underway to implement other MAP–
7 Bridge
Preservation Guidance (FHWA 2011)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/preservation/
guide/guide.pdf
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
21 performance 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.8
Summary of Related Rulemakings
The DOT’s proposal regarding MAP–
21’s performance requirements would
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 will seek comment on each of
these rulemakings.
1. First Federal-Aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking
(RIN: 2125–AF49) 9
a. Propose and define national measures
for the HSIP
b. State and MPO target establishment
requirements for 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
(This NPRM)
a. Propose and define national measures
for the condition of NHS pavements
and bridges
b. State and MPO target establishment
requirements for the Federal-aid
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress
toward the achievement of targets for
NHPP
d. Performance progress reporting
requirements and timing
e. Minimum levels for the condition of
pavement on the Interstate System
3. Third Federal-Aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking
(RIN: 2125–AF54)
a. Propose and define national measures
for the remaining areas under 23
U.S.C. 150(c) that require measures
and are not discussed under the first
and second measure rules, which
8 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/
qapm.cfm
9 The NPRM was published on March 11, 2014 at
79 FR 13846.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
includes the following: National
Performance Measures for
Performance of the Interstate System
and non-Interstate National Highway
System; CMAQ—Traffic Congestion;
CMAQ—On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions; and Freight Movement on
the Interstate System
b. 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 (RINs:
2125–AF52, 2132–AB10) 10
a. Supporting national goals in the
scope of the planning process
b. Coordination between States, MPOs,
and public transportation providers in
selecting FHWA and public
transportation performance targets
c. Integration of elements in 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
requirements in the Metropolitan
transportation plan
5. Updates to the Highway Safety
Improvement Program Regulations
(2125–AF56) 11
a. Integration of performance measures
and targets into the HSIP
b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
updates
c. Establishment of Model Inventory of
Roadway Element—Fundamental
Data Elements
d. HSIP reporting requirements
6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset
Management Plan Rule (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) 12
a. Define state of good repair and
establish measures
10 The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at
79 FR 31784.
11 The NPRM was published on March 28, 2014
at 79 FR 17464.
12 The FTA published their Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that incorporated
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
Continued
05JAP3
332
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
b. Transit asset management plan
content and reporting requirements
c. Target establishment requirements for
public transportation agencies and
MPOs
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132–
AB20) 13
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
a. Define transit safety standards
national goals to focus the Federal-aid
b. Transit safety plan content and
highway program. The following
reporting requirements
national goals are codified at 23 U.S.C.
9. Highway Safety Program Grants Rule
150(b):
(RIN: 2127–AL30, 2127–AL29) 14
• Safety—To achieve a significant
reduction in traffic fatalities and serious
a. Highway safety plan contents,
injuries on all public roads, including
including establishment of
non-State owned public roads and roads
performance measures, targets, and
on tribal lands.
reporting requirements
• Infrastructure condition—To
b. Review and approval of highway
maintain the highway infrastructure
safety plans
asset system in a state of good repair.
Organization of MAP–21 Performance• Congestion reduction—To achieve a
Related Provisions
significant reduction in congestion on
the NHS.
The FHWA organized the many
• System reliability—To improve the
performance-related provisions within
efficiency of the surface transportation
MAP–21 into six elements as defined
system.
below:
• Freight movement and economic
• National Goals—Goals or program
purpose established in MAP–21 to focus vitality—To improve the national freight
network, strengthen the ability of rural
the Federal-aid highway program on
communities to access national and
specific areas of performance.
international trade markets, and support
• Measures—Establishment of
regional economic development.
measures by FHWA to assess
• Environmental sustainability—To
performance and condition in order to
carry out performance-based Federal-aid enhance the performance of the
transportation system while protecting
highway programs.
• Targets—Establishment of targets by and enhancing the natural environment.
• Reduced project delivery delays—
recipients of Federal-aid highway
To reduce project costs, promote jobs
funding for each of the measures to
and the economy, and expedite the
document expectations of future
movement of people and goods by
performance.
accelerating project completion through
• Plans—Development of strategic
eliminating delays in the project
and/or tactical plans by recipients of
development and delivery process,
Federal funding to identify strategies
including reducing regulatory burdens
and investments that will address
and improving agencies’ work practices.
performance needs.
These national goals would be largely
• Reports—Development of reports by
recipients of Federal funding that would supported through the Metropolitan and
Statewide planning process, which is
document progress toward the
discussed under a separate rulemaking
achievement of targets, including the
(2125–AF52) to update the Metropolitan
effectiveness of Federal-aid highway
and Statewide Planning Regulations at
investments.
23 CFR part 450.
• Accountability—Requirements
developed by FHWA for recipients of
B. Measures
Federal funding to use to achieve or
The MAP–21 requires the
make significant progress toward
establishment of performance measures,
achieving targets established for
in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs,
performance.
The following provides a summary of and other stakeholders, that would do
MAP–21 provisions, as they relate to the the following:
• Carry out the NHPP and assess the
condition of pavements on the Interstate
items 7 and 8, on October 3, 2013. This ANPRM
System and the NHS (excluding the
may be found at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf.
Interstate System), the condition of
13 Ibid.
bridges on the NHS, and performance of
14 The National Highway Traffic Safety
the Interstate System and NHS
Administration published their Interim Final Rule
(excluding the Interstate System);
(IFR) on January 23, 2013. This IFR may be found
• carry out the HSIP and assess
at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-23/
pdf/2013-00682.pdf.
serious injuries and fatalities per VMT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
The MAP–21 also requires the Secretary
to establish the data elements necessary
to collect and maintain standardized
data to carry out a performance-based
approach.15
The FHWA would issue three NPRMs
in sequence to propose the measures for
the areas listed above. The first NPRM
focused 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. This current NPRM
focuses on the measures to assess the
condition of pavements and bridges,
and a third NPRM will be issued to
propose the remaining areas under 23
U.S.C. 150(c) that require the
establishment of measures. The FHWA
anticipates issuing these 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 would be an appropriate
effective date. Additional information
on the approach to establish
performance measures for the Federalaid highway program can be found on
FHWA’s Transportation Performance
Management Web site.16
The MAP–21 also requires FHWA to
establish minimum levels for the
condition of pavements for the Interstate
System necessary to carry out the NHPP,
which is proposed in this rulemaking.17
In addition, MAP–21 also requires
FHWA to establish minimum standards
for State DOTs to use in developing and
operating bridge and pavement
management systems, which FHWA
would propose in a separate rulemaking
to establish an Asset Management Plan
(RIN 2125–AF57) for the NHS.18
Separate sections of MAP–21 require
the establishment of additional
measures to assess public transportation
performance.19 These measures, which
would be used to monitor the state of
good repair of transit facilities and to
establish transit safety criteria, would be
addressed in two separate rulemakings,
led by FTA.
15 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(1).
16 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/
schedule.cfm.
17 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
18 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
19 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In regard to the Federal Lands
Transportation Program, FHWA
anticipates working with eligible
Federal entities to establish performance
measures.
C. Targets
The MAP–21 requires State DOTs to
establish performance targets reflecting
measures established for the Federal-aid
highway program 20 and requires MPOs
to establish performance targets for
these measures where applicable.21 The
first NPRM proposed the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the
establishment of safety performance
targets. This NPRM and the third
Federal-aid highway measure NPRM
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.22 A separate rulemaking to
update the Metropolitan and Statewide
Planning Regulations (RIN 2125–AF52)
at 23 CFR part 450 discusses this
coordination requirement.
Further, MAP–21 requires State
Highway Safety Offices to establish
targets for 10 core highway safety
program measures in the HSP, which
NHTSA has implemented through an
Interim Final Rule,23 and for recipients
of public transportation Federal funding
and MPOs to establish state of good
repair and safety targets.24 Discussions
on these target establishment
requirements are not included in this
NPRM. Rather, DOT will discuss those
target establishment requirements in the
subsequent rulemakings to implement
these respective provisions.
D. Plans
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
A number of provisions within MAP–
21 require State DOTs 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 a NHS Asset
Management Plan; 25 State DOTs to
20 23
U.S.C. 150(d).
U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
22 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).
23 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).
24 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.
25 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
update their SHSP; 26 MPOs serving a
large TMA in areas of non-attainment or
maintenance to develop a CMAQ
Performance Plan; 27 MPOs to include a
System Performance Report in the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan; 28
and State DOTs and MPOs to include a
discussion, to the maximum extent
practical, in their Transportation
Improvement Program as to how the
program would achieve the performance
targets they have established for the
area.29 In addition, State DOTs are
encouraged to develop a State Freight
Plan to document planned activities and
investments with respect to freight.30
This rulemaking does not discuss any
requirements to develop or use plans.
Rather, a discussion on the development
and use of these plans would 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.31
E. Reports
The MAP–21 section 1203 requires
State DOTs to submit biennial reports to
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.32 The FHWA
proposed in the first NPRM that safety
progress be reported by State DOTs
through the HSIP annual report and not
in the biennial report required under 23
U.S.C. 150(e). This NPRM, under
subpart A, discusses the 23 U.S.C.
150(e) biennial reporting requirement.
The 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting
requirement would apply to all of the
non-safety measures for the Federal-aid
highway program (i.e., the measures
proposed in this NPRM and in the third
Performance Measures NPRM).
Additional progress reporting
requirements are 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. Detailed
discussions on these reporting
requirements are not included in this
NPRM. Also, State DOTs should include
21 23
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
26 23
U.S.C. 148(d).
U.S.C. 149(l).
28 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).
29 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).
30 MAP–21 Section 1118.
31 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/
qapm.cfm.
32 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
27 23
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
333
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 biennial
reports, then the State DOT must
document in its next report the actions
it would take to achieve the targets.33
The proposed implementation of this
provision is covered in subpart A of this
NPRM. For the HSIP, if a State DOT
does not achieve or make significant
progress toward the achievement of its
HSIP safety targets, then the State DOT
must dedicate a specified amount of
obligation limitation to safety projects
and prepare an annual implementation
plan.34 The first performance measures
NPRM discussed this provision.
In addition, MAP–21 requires that
each State DOT maintain a minimum
condition level for Interstate System
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.35 This NPRM discusses this
provision.
The FHWA recognizes that there is a
limit to the direct impact that State
DOTs can have on performance
outcomes within the State and that State
DOTs need to consider this uncertainty
in their establishment of targets. The
FHWA encourages State DOTs to
consult with relevant entities (e.g.,
MPOs, local transportation agencies,
Federal Land Management Agencies,
tribal governments) as State DOTs
establish targets, so they can better
identify and consider factors outside of
their direct control that could impact
future condition/performance.
Further, MAP–21 includes special
safety rules to require each State DOT to
maintain or improve safety performance
on high risk rural roads and for older
drivers and pedestrians.36 If the State
33 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
U.S.C. 148(i).
35 23 U.S.C. 119(f).
36 23 U.S.C. 148(g).
34 23
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
334
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 SHSP actions they
intend to take to improve performance
(in the case of the older driver special
rule). Guidance on how FHWA would
administer these two special rules is
provided on the FHWA MAP–21 Web
site.
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
decisionmaking that does not hinder
performance improvement. In this
regard, FHWA carefully considered the
following principles in the development
of proposed regulations for national
performance 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 would be
required for target establishment and
progress reporting. Limit the number of
measures to one or 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 establish
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 would provide the public and
decision makers a better understanding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
of Federal transportation investment
returns and needs.
• Consider Risk—recognize that risks
in the target establishment process are
inherent and that many factors, outside
the control of those that would be
required to establish targets, can impact
performance.
• Understand that Priorities Differ—
recognize that targets need to be
established across a wide range of
performance areas and that performance
trade-offs would need to be made to
establish priorities, which would 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 would be learning a great
deal as implementation occurs.
The FHWA considered these
principles in this NPRM and encourages
comments on the extent to which this
approach to performance measures, set
forth in this NPRM, supports the
principles discussed above.
Federal Technical Assistance
The FHWA is committed to providing
stewardship to State DOTs and MPOs
assisting them as they take steps to
manage and improve the performance of
the highway system. As a Federal
agency, FHWA is in a unique position
to utilize resources at a national level to
capture and share strategies that can
improve performance. The FHWA is
prepared to dedicate resources at the
national level to provide on-site
assistance, technical tools and guidance
to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them
in making more effective investment
decisions. It is FHWA’s intent to be
engaged at a local and national level to
provide resources and assistance from
the onset to identify opportunities to
improve performance and to increase
the chances for full State DOT and MPO
compliance of new performance related
regulations. The FHWA technical
assistance will include activities such as
conducting national research studies,
developing analytical modeling tools,
identifying and promoting best
practices, preparing guidance materials,
and developing data quality assurance
tools. The FHWA encourages comments
on how it can help maximize
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
opportunities for successful
implementation.
V. Performance Management Measure
Analysis
In consultation with State DOTs,
MPOs and other stakeholders, FHWA
selected measures for this proposed rule
considered to be the best alternatives to
carry out the pavement and bridge
condition related provisions of the
NHPP and to use to assess pavement
and bridge condition. The FHWA
evaluated the selected measures, using a
common methodology, to identify gaps
that could impact successful
implementation of proposed
performance measures. This section
discusses the basis for selecting the
proposed performance measures and
FHWA’s identification of potential
implementation gaps.
A. Selection of National Performance
Management Measures for the NHPP:
Pavement and Bridge
The FHWA considered views from the
following sources when developing
pavement and bridge measures to carry
out the NHPP:
• Knowledge of technical experts
within DOT on the current state of
practice to monitor highway pavement
and bridge condition;
• 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 final
report for NCHRP 20–24(37)G,
‘‘Technical Guidance for Deploying
National Level Performance
Measurements.’’
Pavement Condition Measure
Since 2010, through HPMS, State
DOTs have submitted rutting, Cracking_
Percent, International Roughness Index
(IRI), and faulting data metrics.37 The
FHWA’s ‘‘Conditions and Performance
Report’’ and ‘‘Highway Statistics Series’’
have used pavement roughness, with
the IRI as a metric, as the basis for its
pavement conditions.
Based on FHWA’s research, most
State DOTs use a common group of
pavement metrics (e.g., pavement
37 Cracking_Percent refers to the data metric in
HPMS and is used as one of the metrics for
determining the condition of pavements for the
performance measure.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
roughness, percentage of pavement that
is rutted, percentage of pavement that is
cracked, and the amount of
misalignment between concrete
pavement slabs), to report on and
manage the condition of pavements in
their State. There is not currently a
nationally accepted method for
assessing pavement condition using
multiple pavement condition metrics
(e.g., IRI, rutting, Cracking_Percent,
faulting) that most State DOTs use. A
survey conducted as part of the 2009
National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401
study 38 revealed that 98 percent of State
DOTs collect distress data (e.g., faulting,
cracking) and 95 percent collect
roughness data to monitor network level
pavement conditions. Similarly, an
assessment of pavement management
practices conducted by FHWA indicated
that, for the NHS, all State DOTs
monitor roughness and rutting, 94
percent monitor Cracking_Percent, 95
percent monitor faulting (with concrete
surfaced pavements), and 31 percent
monitor structural capacity.
The FHWA selected these metrics for
calculation of the performance measures
to assess pavement conditions in this
rulemaking. In support of the selection
of these metrics, FHWA evaluated their
use in highway pavement investment
decisions by State DOTs. The Texas
Transportation Institute conducted a
study, called the ‘‘Pavement Score
Synthesis.’’ The synthesis study
indicated that nearly all State DOTs use
a combination of pavement condition
attributes and a variety of methods and
procedures to rate the condition of
pavements. Most of these methods and
procedures included some aspect of
pavement roughness and at least one
other pavement condition metric. A
recently completed NCHRP project 39
included a detailed review of data
collected and reported by State DOTs on
pavement condition in their State
pavement management system as
compared to the data they report in the
HPMS. This project included a national
survey that was provided to all State
DOTs and a detailed assessment using
data collected and reported from eight
State DOTs. The project’s report
indicated that assessments of pavement
condition using State DOT methods of
qualifying good, fair, and poor
conditions were noticeably different
38 Flintsch G., McGhee K., NCHRP Synthesis 401,
‘‘Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data
Collection’’, 2009.
39 Zimmerman, K., Smadi, O. NCHRP 20–24(82),
‘‘Increasing Consistency in HPMS Pavement Data,’’
2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
335
The four proposed measures to assess
pavement condition are: (1) Percentage
of pavements on the Interstate System in
Good condition; (2) Percentage of
pavements on the Interstate System in
Poor condition; (3) Percentage of
pavements on the NHS (excluding the
Interstate System) in Good condition;
and (4) a Percentage of pavements on
the NHS (excluding the Interstate
System) in Poor condition.
The FHWA is proposing measures to
represent both the percentage of Good
pavements and the percentage of Poor
pavements that would support sound
asset management practices. The FHWA
intends to implement a condition
measurement approach that will
recognize the need to both preserve
Good and Fair conditions and improve
Poor conditions. The FHWA believes
that a measurement approach that
focused only on increasing Good
conditions or only on reducing Poor
conditions may result in practices that
would not optimize the benefits of
infrastructure investments. This same
approach is proposed for the bridge
condition measures as discussed in the
next section.
from an approach based solely on IRI
conditions as reported in the HPMS.
In developing its proposed measure,
FHWA considered the use of existing
methods such as the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) developed by the
Army Corps of Engineers, the RSL
concept using prediction models
developed for the MechanisticEmpirical Design Guide for New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,
under NCHRP 1–37A 40, and State DOTdeveloped methods to calculate a
pavement condition rating. The FHWA
found that no single existing method
was used predominantly enough to be
considered as a national standard. In
addition, existing methods, such as the
PCI, were too challenging to implement
nationally due to the burden and time
associated with introducing pavement
condition metrics that are not currently
reported at a national level through a
system like HPMS.
The FHWA has been working for the
past several years in consultation with
State DOTs to evaluate approaches that
could more completely assess pavement
condition at a national level. Based on
these efforts, FHWA proposes to
establish measures to assess pavement
condition that meet the following
criteria:
• Consider more than roughness.
• Utilize pavement condition
attributes currently reported at a
national level.
• Utilize pavement condition
attributes where data collection and
reporting standards exist today.
• Result in an assessment approach
that is consistent with typical
conceptual approaches used today by
State DOTs to assess condition.
• Consider an approach that can be
implemented so that State DOTs can
establish targets within a 12-month time
period after FHWA establishes the
performance measures without
introducing a considerable burden on
State DOTs.
The FHWA proposes in this NPRM a
measure for State DOTs to use to assess
pavement condition that satisfies the
criteria above and is based on data
within the HPMS, including: IRI, rutting
for asphalt surfaced pavements, faulting
for jointed concrete surfaced pavements,
and Cracking_Percent. The FHWA
proposes pavement condition measures
that would reflect the predominant
condition represented by each of these
HPMS data elements.
Bridge Condition Measure
The FHWA, using data from the NBI,
monitors bridge conditions in the
United States. This database was
established in 1972 and State DOTs
have been required to submit annual
reports to FHWA since 1978. The NBI
is a highly consistent set of national
data for evaluating the condition and
performance of bridges. The National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) in
23 CFR part 650 contribute to this
consistency. The NBIS established the
national standards for the proper and
uniform inspection and evaluation of
highway bridges. The NBIS include the
specified methods by which inspections
are to be carried out, qualifications for
those charged with carrying out
inspections, and certain bridge data that
is to be collected and retained for
collection by FHWA. For these reasons,
FHWA considers the NBI and its data
the definitive source for national bridge
information and the most appropriate
metric for bridge condition measures.
The ‘‘Improving FHWA’s Ability to
Assess Highway Infrastructure Health
Pilot Study Report’’ 41 evaluated
different methods to assign bridge
condition using NBI data as a metric for
defining a Good, Fair, or Poor
classification. For this study, the NBI
40 ‘‘The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,’’
NCHRP 1–37A, 2004, https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_
toc.pdf.
41 Guerre, et al., FHWA–HIF–12–049, ‘‘Improving
FHWA’s Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure
Health Pilot Study Report,’’ 2012 https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/
hif12049.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
336
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
database was selected as the logical data
source because of the consistency of its
representation of over 40 years of
collected data, and its use by nearly
every State DOT as the current basis for
their bridge decisionmaking. The study
discussed and evaluated four different
weighted average methods and one
minimum condition rating method. The
four weighted average methods
consisted of calculating a measure of
structural adequacy based on a weighted
average of deck, superstructure, and
sub-structure condition ratings of a
bridge. The minimum condition rating
method calculated a measure of
structural adequacy based on the lowest
condition rating of deck, superstructure,
and sub-structure of a bridge.
Findings of the study concluded that
for the Interstate System:
• Percentages of bridges classified as
Good, Fair, or Poor were consistent for
the four different weighted average
methods and the minimum condition
rating method with little variation;
• the minimum condition rating
method resulted in the highest
percentage of bridges in Poor condition;
• percentages of bridges classified as
Good, Fair, or Poor based on the four
weighted average methods were not
sensitive to the weights; and
• bridge deck conditions alone are
typically not the driving factor in the
Good, Fair, or Poor classifications.
The FHWA conducted an additional
assessment of the different methods and
observed that the magnitude in
differences between condition ratings
for individual NBI items was somewhat
nullified when a final average or
weighted average method was
employed. The ‘‘Improving FHWA’s
Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure
Health Pilot Study Report’’ made a
similar observation. This masking or
obscuring of possible poor bridge
conditions is a major concern with these
methods. Although these methods could
be further refined to possibly resolve
this problem, the development,
subjectivity, and complexity of such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
methods makes them less desirable than
the simple minimum condition rating
method, particularly when analyses
indicate that a refined weighted method
would result in the same general
classification as the minimum condition
rating method.
The FHWA proposes to establish two
bridge performance measures using a
classification system of Good, Fair, and
Poor. These are based on an assessment
of bridge condition data from the NBI.
The measures would reflect the lowest
component condition rating for the
bridge.42 The FHWA further proposes to
weight this classification by the
respective deck area of the bridge and
express condition totals as a percentage
of the total bridge deck area in a State.
The two proposed performance
measures for assessing bridge condition
are: (1) Percentage of NHS Bridges
Classified as in Good Condition; and (2)
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as
in Poor Condition. These proposed
performance measures are based on the
assessment of condition ratings for the
following NBI Items: 58—Deck, 59—
Superstructure, 60—Substructure, and
62—Culverts.
B. Assessment of Selected National
Performance Management Measures for
the NHPP: Pavement and Bridge
The FHWA used a common
methodology of 12 criteria to assess the
appropriateness of the measure for
national use and the readiness to
implement the performance measure
accurately and reliably. As a result of its
assessment, FHWA assigned one of the
42 While FHWA proposes bridge condition
measures that would reflect the lowest condition
level represented by different bridge elements, the
proposed pavement condition measures would
reflect the predominant condition represented by
certain HPMS data elements. The FHWA is
proposing these differing approaches for pavement
and bridges primarily due to the need to minimize
safety risks associated with bridges. Additional
information is provided in the Section-by-Section
discussion to describe the differences in the
methods to determine pavement and bridge
conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
following three ratings for each
criterion.
• Green—Criterion is fully met for the
candidate measure
• Yellow—Criterion is partially met for
the candidate measure and work is
underway to fully meet the criterion
• Red—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 FHWA
could address through this rulemaking
to improve the effectiveness of the
measures for State DOTs and MPOs to
use to assess pavement and bridge
conditions. The rulemaking docket
contains a description of the
methodology used for this assessment.
Pavement Condition Performance
Management Measures
The following four pavement
performance measures for assessing
condition proposed by FHWA are
calculated from data from the HPMS: (1)
Percentage of pavements on the
Interstate System in Good condition; (2)
Percentage of pavements on the
Interstate System in Poor condition; (3)
Percentage of pavements on the NHS
(excluding the Interstate System) in
Good condition; and (4) Percentage of
pavements on the NHS (excluding the
Interstate System) in Poor condition.
The assessment process described
earlier in this section evaluates these
pavement performance measures for
assessing conditions based on existing
state-of-the-practice. Table 1 provides a
summary of this assessment.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
337
Table 1. NHPP Pavements Condition Measure Analysis
Assessment Factor/Criterion
Al) Is the measure focused on
comprehensive performance outcomes?
A2) Has the measure been developed in
partnership with key stakeholders?
A3) Is the measure maintainable to
accommodate changes?
A4) Can the measure be used to support
investment decisions, policy making
and target establishment?
AS) Can the measures be used to
analyze performance trends?
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
y
y
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
y
y
y
y
y
y
B2) Consistency
R
R
R
R
B3) Completeness
y
y
R
R
B4) Accuracy
y
y
R
R
B5) Accessibility
G
G
G
G
B6) Data Integration
G
G
G
G
A6) Has the feasibility and practicality
to collect, store, and report data in
support of the measures been
considered?
B 1) Timeliness
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
The performance measures identified
in this NPRM are considered to be ready
for use when all of the criteria are rated
Green. The remaining measures require
additional analysis before they can be
used on a regular basis for measuring
the performance of the transportation
system. The proposal outlined in this
NPRM attempts to address some of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
gaps that exist today for the yellow and
red criteria 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. The FHWA proposal
addresses the gaps that exist today
primarily through improvement of data
collection techniques, requiring the use
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of established AASHTO Standards,
establishing a standard method of
calculation, and requiring data quality
management programs in every State
DOT. When establishing the proposed
pavement condition measures, FHWA
considered the following with respect to
the criteria above:
• Criterion A3—consider data
standards that allow for new data
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.001</GPH>
Legend: G=Green Y= Yellow R=Red A=Appropriateness B=Readiness
338
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
collection methods as technologies
improve. Consider an approach that
allows for pavement metrics to change
in the future as data standards are
updated and improved.
• Criterion A4—recognize that the
individual pavement metrics are not
typically used to drive decisionmaking.
Consider how the four metrics can be
used collectively to develop a pavement
measure that is more closely tied to
decisionmaking.
• Criterion A6—consider changes to
the current requirements to collect,
store, and report data to the HPMS to
support the proposed pavement
condition measure.
• Criterion B1—recognize the time lag
of data available in national data
sources versus the availability of data in
State-maintained sources in
requirements associated with proposed
pavement measures, target
establishment, and evaluation of
progress.
• Criteria B2 and B4—consider an
approach that utilizes data collection
standards and data reporting
requirements that would improve
consistency and accuracy in application
across the country and recognize that
these improvements can take time to
implement. Recognize that State DOTs
have been collecting and reporting
pavement condition metrics for many
years and that the standards, frequency,
and formats have changed during this
time.
• Criterion B3—consider an approach
that improves the completeness of data
coverage in the HPMS and recognize
that State data submissions often have
not represented the full extent of the
NHS.
• Criterion B6—recognize the
essential need for a national data source
for pavement condition and that
implementing minor adjustments to
existing State DOT methodologies
would facilitate the creation of such a
national data source at a relatively low
cost. Furthermore, many States already
have technology, such as Geographic
information Systems or Enterprise
Resource Systems that can integrate data
from various sources to support
decisionmaking on a larger scale to aid
with asset management and
performance reporting programs.
Bridge Condition Performance
Management Measures
The FHWA proposes two performance
measures for assessing bridge condition:
(1) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS
Bridges Classified as in Good condition;
and (2) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS
Bridges Classified as in Poor condition.
This data includes the following NBI
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
items: 58—Deck, 59—Superstructure,
60—Substructure, and 62—Culverts.
These bridge performance measures for
assessing condition attributes were
evaluated using the, existing state-ofthe-practice, assessment process
described in Section A.
All of the criteria, when applied to the
proposed bridge performance measures,
can be fully met largely because FHWA
and stakeholders recognize that the NBI
is, and has been for decades, the most
consistent and comprehensive set of
national data for evaluating the
condition of bridges. Because the NBIS
contains a consistent set of required
standards for State DOTs to use for the
proper inspection and evaluation of
bridges for safety and serviceability, its
use results in consistent and accurate
data that goes into the NBI. Nearly every
State DOT uses the NBI in some form as
the basis for their current bridge
decisionmaking. The calculation of the
performance measures for assessing
bridge condition provides flexibility to
accommodate future changes such as
the use of element level bridge data. In
addition, the proposed measures are
consistent with the feedback that FHWA
has received from stakeholders.
Therefore, FHWA considers the
proposed bridge performance measures
ready for use.
In this NPRM, FHWA is proposing the
establishment of measures to assess
pavement and bridge conditions. These
measures would be used by State DOTs
and MPOs to establish targets, develop
plans, and report on progress. As
discussed in the background of this
proposal, FHWA is conducting a related
rulemaking to establish requirements for
the development of Asset Management
Plans; this NPRM includes proposed
minimum standards for State DOTs to
use to develop and operate pavement
and bridge management systems (RIN
2125–AF56). State DOTs use these
systems to develop investment strategies
for managing the conditions of their
pavement and bridge networks. Further,
FHWA has issued a proposed rule to
update 23 CFR 450 to integrate
performance in the scope of the
metropolitan and statewide planning
process (RIN 2125–AF52, 2132–AB10).
Collectively, these three rulemakings
discuss how the proposed measures
would be used by State DOTs and MPOs
to assess and manage pavement and
bridge conditions.
Transportation decision makers
consider a range of factors that
ultimately influence project level
investments decisions and typically
reflect the transportation priorities for a
local area or region. For example, a State
DOT may, as a priority, focus their
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
decisionmaking on investments that
first address the sections of highways
with higher traffic volumes or fatalities.
With the exception of the minimum
condition requirements for Interstate
pavements and NHS bridges, FHWA is
not proposing an implementation
approach in this NPRM that would
suggest how a State DOT or MPO would
prioritize investment decisions. State
DOTs and MPOs consider their
priorities through the planning process.
The requirement of reporting and
assessing targets would not necessarily
dictate how a State DOT or MPO should
prioritize their decision-making in
establishing the targets required by 23
U.S.C. 150(d). A State DOT or MPO may
consider a number of factors, such as
funding availability and local
transportation priorities, that could
impact the targets they ultimately
establish for pavement and bridge
system conditions. For this reason, as
stated in the discussion sections for
§§ 490.105 and 490.109, the State DOT
or MPO may elect to establish targets
that represent a decline in pavement or
bridge system conditions. Once
established, the State DOT and MPO
would use their targets to program
investments by selecting sections of
highway that would be treated to
preserve or improve condition. The
proposed regulation allows a State DOT
or MPO to make decisions on the
location of project investments. The
FHWA encourages State DOTs and
MPOs to select projects that will
maximize the investment returns in
improving system conditions.
The measures that are being proposed
in this rulemaking are intended to
summarize the condition based on the
physical attributes of the pavement and
bridge facility. Consequently, under this
proposal a pavement or bridge would be
rated in the same condition (Good, Fair,
or Poor) regardless of the facility’s
location; functional class; level of use;
environment; or impact the facility may
have on other aspects of transportation
performance, such as safety and traffic
congestion. The FHWA is seeking
comment from the public on whether
the measures should reflect additional
factors that could influence decision
making, such as facility location,
functional class, level of use,
environment, or impact it may have on
other aspects of transportation
performance.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Discussion of § 490.101 General
Definitions
The FHWA proposes a section of
general definitions. The first NPRM
regarding the establishment of measures
for carrying out the HSIP included
several definitions (HPMS, measure,
metric, non-urbanized area and target)
that are repeated in this NPRM to
provide clarity in the implementation of
the proposed performance measures.
The FHWA proposes to define ‘‘Full
Extent’’ to delineate data collection
methods that utilize a sampling
approach versus those that use a
continuous form of data collection.
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.44
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.
The FHWA proposes to define
‘‘mainline highway’’ to limit the extent
of the highway system to be included in
the scope of the proposed pavement
performance measures. The proposed
definition for mainline highway
includes the primary traveled portion of
the roadway and excludes ramps,
climbing lanes, turn lanes, auxiliary
lanes, shoulders, and non-normally
traveled pavement surfaces.
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
43 Subpart B, addressing the HSIP-related
performance management measures, was proposed
in the first Federal-aid Highway Performance
Management Measures NPRM.
44 Highway Performance Monitoring System,
FHWA Office of Policy Information. https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/
nahpms.cfm.
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the
General Information and Proposed
National Performance Management
Measures for the NHPP: Pavement and
Bridge
This Section-by-Section discusses
how the proposed regulations address
MAP–21’s charge to establish national
performance measures for State DOTs
and MPOs to assess the condition of
pavements and bridges to carry out the
NHPP. The common aspects of the
proposed rulemaking, related to
reporting, significant progress
determination, and target development,
are discussed in subpart A: General
Information. For the bridge and
pavement performance measures, the
proposed rule is separated by asset.43
Subpart C addresses the Pavement
performance measures and subpart D
addresses the Bridge performance
measures. Subparts C and D provide the
requirements for the Pavement and
Bridge performance measures, including
methodologies for data collection, data
requirements, a calculation process for
evaluating condition, establishment or
identification of minimal level of
condition, and penalties for not
maintaining condition. The Section-bySection discussion also addresses
procedural discrepancies in current data
collection and reporting and attempts to
update them utilizing the latest research
and state-of-the-practice experience to
provide consistent national performance
measures.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
A. Section-by-Section Discussion for the
Subpart A: General Information, Target
establishment, reporting, and NHPP
Significant Progress Determination
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
339
progress toward achieving the
established targets.
The FHWA proposes a definition for
‘‘National Bridge Inventory (NBI)’’
because it is the data system that would
be used to establish the measure for
assessing the condition of the bridges on
the NHS and the targets for the measure,
and the assessment of progress toward
achieving the established targets. This
definition is based on the description of
an inventory as required by 23 U.S.C.
144(b)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D).
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 for urbanized and non-urbanized
areas. For target-establishment
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.
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition for ‘‘Performance period’’ to
establish a definitive period of time
during which condition/performance
would be measured, evaluated, and
reported. The frequency of measurement
and target establishment for the
measures proposed to implement 23
U.S.C. 150 is not directly or indirectly
defined in statute. The FHWA proposes
a consistent time period of 4 calendar
years that would be used to assess nonsafety condition/performance. This time
period aligns with the timing of the
biennial performance reporting
requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)
and is consistent with a typical
planning cycle for most State DOTs and
MPOs (e.g., State and MPO
transportation improvement programs
are required to cover a 4-year period;
metropolitan plans are also required to
be updated every 4 or 5 years). The
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
340
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
proposed calendar year basis is
consistent with data reporting
requirements currently in place to
report pavement and bridge conditions,
which are also done on a calendar year
basis.
The FHWA proposes a definition for
‘‘Performance period’’ that would cover
a 4-year period beginning on January 1
of the calendar year in which targets are
due to FHWA, as discussed in
§ 490.105. Within a performance period,
condition/performance would be
measured and evaluated to: (1) Assess
condition/performance with respect to
baseline condition/performance; and (2)
track progress toward the achievement
of the target that represents the intended
condition/performance level at the
midpoint and at the end of that time
period. The term ‘‘Performance period’’
applies to all proposed measures in this
Part, except the proposed measures for
the HSIP provided for in § 490.209
where FHWA proposed a 1 calendar
year period as the basis for
measurement, target establishment and
reporting.
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.
Discussion of § 490.103 Data
Requirements
The FHWA is proposing in § 490.103
data requirements that apply to more
than one subpart in part 490. Additional
proposed data requirements that are
unique to each subpart are included and
discussed in their respective subpart.
In this section, FHWA is proposing
that State DOTs would submit
urbanized area boundaries in
accordance with the HPMS Field
Manual. The boundaries of urbanized
areas would be as identified through the
most recent U.S. Decennial Census
unless FHWA approves adjustments to
the urbanized area, as submitted by
State DOTs and allowed for under 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(34). These boundaries are
to be reported to HPMS in the year the
Baseline Performance Report is due, and
are applicable to the entire performance
period, regardless of whether or not
FHWA approved adjustments to the
urbanized area boundary during the
performance period. The FHWA
proposes that the State DOT submitted
boundary information would be the
authoritative data source for the target
scope for the additional targets for
urbanized and non-urbanized areas
(§ 490.105(e)(3)), progress reporting
(§ 490.107(b)), and IRI rating
(§ 490.313(b)(1)) for the measures
identified in § 490.105(c)(1)–(3). As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
discussed in § 490.105(d)(3), any
changes in urbanized area boundaries
during a performance period would not
be accounted for until the following
performance period. The FHWAapproved urbanized area data available
in HPMS on June 15th (HPMS due date)
prior to the due date of the Baseline
Performance Report is to be used for this
purpose. For example, State DOTs shall
submit their first Baseline Performance
Period Report to FHWA by October 1,
2016. The FHWA approved urbanized
area data available in HPMS on June 16,
2016 is to be used.
Section 490.103(c) is reserved.
In § 490.103(d), FHWA proposes that
State DOTs would continue to submit
NHS limit data in accordance with
HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA
proposed that the State DOT submitted
NHS information would be the
authoritative data source for
determining measure applicability
(§ 490.105(c)), target scope
(§ 490.105(d)), progress reporting
(§ 490.107(b)), and determining
significant progress (§ 490.109(d)) for
the measures identified in
§ 490.105(c)(1)–(3). As discussed in
§ 490.105(e)(3)(i), the NHS limits dataset
referenced in the Baseline Performance
Report are to be applied to the entire
performance period, regardless of
changes to the NHS approved and
submitted to HPMS during the
performance period.
Discussion of § 490.105
of Performance Targets
Establishment
The declared policy under 23 U.S.C.
150(a) transforms the Federal-aid
highway program and encourages the
most efficient investment of Federal
transportation funds by refocusing on
national transportation goals, increasing
accountability and transparency in the
Federal-aid highway program, and
improving investment decisionmaking.
To this end, FHWA encourages State
DOTs and MPOs to establish targets that
would support the national
transportation goals while improving
investment decision-making processes.
A number of considerations were
raised during the performance
management stakeholder outreach
sessions regarding target establishment,
such as: Providing flexibility for State
DOTs and MPOs, coordinating through
the planning process, allowing for
appropriate time for target achievement,
and allowing State DOTs and MPOs to
incorporate risks. Using these
considerations, FHWA created a set of
principles to develop an approach to
implement the target establishment
requirements in MAP–21. These
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
principles aimed to develop an
approach that:
• Provides for a new focus for the
Federal-aid program on the MAP–21
national goals under 23 U.S.C. 150(b);
• improves investment
decisionmaking;
• considers the need for local
performance trade-off decisionmaking;
• provides for flexibility in the
establishment of targets;
• allows for an aggregated view of
anticipated condition/performance; and
• considers budget constraints.
In § 490.105, FHWA proposes the
minimum requirements that would be
followed by State DOTs and MPOs in
the establishment of targets for all
measures identified in § 490.105(c),
which include the proposed measures
in both this performance management
NPRM and the third performance
management NPRM. These
requirements are being proposed to
implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23
U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target establishment
provisions in a manner that provides for
the consistency necessary to evaluate
and report progress at a State, MPO, and
national level, while also providing a
degree of flexibility for State DOTs and
MPOs.
The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(a)
for State DOTs and MPOs to establish
quantifiable targets for each
performance measure identified in
§ 490.105(c). In § 490.105(b), the
performance targets for carrying out the
HSIP would be established in
accordance with § 490.209 of the first
performance management NPRM.
In § 490.105(d), FHWA proposes that
State DOTs establish statewide targets
that represent performance outcomes of
the transportation network within the
respective State boundary, and that
MPOs establish targets that represent
performance outcomes of the
transportation network within their
respective metropolitan planning area.
State DOTs and, if applicable, MPOs are
encouraged to coordinate their targetestablishment with neighboring states
and MPOs to the extent practicable. The
FHWA further proposes in § 490.105(d)
that State DOTs and MPOs establish
targets that represent performance
outcomes of the entire transportation
network required for proposed measures
regardless of ownership, including NHS
bridges that cross a State border.
The FHWA recognizes that there is a
limit to the direct impact the State DOT
and the MPO can have on the
performance outcomes within the State
and the metropolitan planning area,
respectively, and recognizes that the
State DOT and the MPO need to
consider this uncertainty when
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
establishing targets. For example, some
Federal and tribal lands contain roads
and bridges on the NHS that State DOTs
would need to consider (as appropriate)
when establishing targets. The FHWA
anticipates that State DOTs and MPOs
would need to consult with relevant
entities (e.g., relevant MPOs, State
DOTs, local transportation agencies,
Federal Land Management Agencies,
tribal governments) as they establish
targets to better identify and consider
factors outside of their direct control
that could impact future condition/
performance.
The FHWA also recognizes that the
limits of the NHS could change between
the time of target establishment and the
time of progress evaluation and
reporting for the targets for measures
specified in sections § 490.105(c)(1)
through (3). State DOTs may request
modifications to the NHS, which could
result in additions, deletions or
relocations. In one instance with MAP–
21, segments were added to the NHS.
Such changes may alter the measures
reported, which could then impact how
an established target relates to actual
measured performance. For example, if
NHS limits are changed after a State
DOT establishes the target, actual
measured performance of the
transportation network within the
changed NHS limits would represent a
different set of highways as compared to
what was originally used to establish
the target. This difference could impact
a State DOT’s ability to make significant
progress toward achieving targets. Thus,
for establishing targets for NHS, FHWA
believes that it will be important for the
State DOT to ensure that the data used
to establish the targets is accessible, and
the information about the data is
properly documented. Consequently,
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
need to describe the extent of the NHS
used for target establishment. The
FHWA also proposes that State DOTs
declare and describe their urbanized
area boundaries. This information
would be included, along with reporting
targets, in the Baseline Performance
Period Report described in
§ 490.107(b)(1). These NHS limits and
urbanized area boundaries are to be
reported to HPMS in the year the
Baseline Performance Report is due, and
are applicable to the entire performance
period, regardless of whether or not
FHWA approved adjustments to the
NHS limits during the performance
period. In § 490.105(d)(3), FHWA
proposes that any changes in NHS limits
or urbanized area boundaries during a
performance period would not be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
accounted for until the following
performance period.
In § 490.105(e), FHWA proposes the
State DOT requirements for the
establishment of targets for all measures
identified in paragraph 490.105(c), with
applicable transportation network for
those targets (target scope) defined in
paragraph 490.105(d). Pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 150(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 150(e),
FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(1) that
State DOTs would establish targets
within 1 year of the effective date of this
rule, and for each performance period
thereafter the State DOTs would
establish and report the targets to
FHWA by the due date provided in
§ 490.107(b)(1). The FHWA anticipates
the final rule for this proposal to be
effective no later than October 1, 2015.
This would allow for at least a 1-year
period for States to establish targets so
that they can be reported in the first
biennial performance report which
would be due to FHWA by October 1,
2016. The FHWA recognizes that if the
final rule is effective after October 1,
2015, the due date to report State DOT
targets for the first performance period
may need to be adjusted. If it becomes
clear that the final rule won’t be
effective until after October 1, 2015,
FHWA will consider adjusting the due
date in the final rule or will issue
implementation guidance that would
provide State DOTs a 1-year period to
establish and report targets.
The proposed schedule would require
the establishment and reporting of
targets at the beginning of each
performance period or every 4 years.
With the exception of the allowance
proposed in § 490.105(e)(6), FHWA
recommends that State DOTs would not
have the ability to change targets
reported for a performance period.
Considering this proposed limitation,
State DOTs would need to provide for
sufficient time to fully evaluate their
targets before they are due to be
reported to FHWA.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in
§ 490.105 (e)(2) that State DOTs shall
coordinate with relevant MPOs to
establish consistent targets, to the
maximum extent practicable. The
coordination would be accomplished in
accordance with 23 CFR 450. The
FHWA recognizes the need for State
DOTs and MPOs to have a shared vision
on expectations for future condition/
performance in order for there to be a
jointly owned target establishment
process.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to
establish additional targets for any of
the proposed measures in Subparts C
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
341
and D, beyond the required statewide
target. The State DOT could establish
additional targets for any number and
combination of urbanized areas and
could establish a target for the nonurbanized area for any or all of the
proposed measures. This is intended to
give the State flexibility when setting
targets, and to aid the State in
accounting for differences in urbanized
and the non-urbanized area. For
instance, a State DOT could choose to
establish additional targets for a single
urbanized area, a number of the
urbanized areas, or all of the urbanized
areas separately or collectively. For
States that want to establish a nonurbanized target, it would be a single
target that applies to the non-urbanized
area statewide. If the State DOT elects
to establish any additional targets, they
need to be declared and described in the
State Biennial Performance Report just
after the start date of a performance
period (i.e., Baseline Performance
Period Report). The FHWA intends to
issue guidance regarding the voluntary
establishment of additional performance
targets for urbanized areas and the nonurbanized area.
If a State DOT chooses to establish
additional performance targets, it would
increase the number of performance
targets that it reports. For example, at a
minimum, State DOTs would be
required to establish four statewide
targets for the pavement condition
measures, as specified in § 490.307. If a
State DOT chooses to establish
additional targets for all 4 pavement
condition measures for the single largest
urbanized area in its state, the State
DOT would increase the total number of
pavement condition targets to eight (4
required targets + 4 additional
urbanized area targets = 8).
For each additional target established,
State DOTs would evaluate whether
they have made progress towards
achieving each target and report on that
progress in their biennial performance
report in accordance with
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B).
Any additional targets the State DOT
chooses to establish would not be
subject to the significant progress
assessment in § 490.109. Because these
additional targets are optional and
subcomponents of targets established
under § 490.105(d), including them in
the significant progress assessment
proposed in § 490.109 could result in
‘‘double counting’’ during that
assessment. The FHWA believes that
excluding these additional targets from
the significant progress assessment in
§ 490.109 provides an opportunity for
some flexibility with respect to
establishing the targets and may
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
342
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
encourage State DOTs to establish these
additional targets.
Historically, the Census has defined
urbanized areas every 10 years, and
these boundaries can be adjusted (see 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(34)). The FHWA
recognizes that the urbanized area
boundaries and resulting non-urbanized
area boundary have the potential to
change on varying schedules. Changing
a boundary during a performance period
may lead to changes in the measures
reported for the area, and could impact
how an established target relates to
actual measured performance. Thus,
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
need to describe the urbanized area
boundaries and the non-urbanized area
boundary in place at the start of a
performance period in the Baseline
Performance Period Report, and use
those same boundaries throughout a
performance period. This will eliminate
the potential for inconsistencies in the
extent of the network used to establish
targets and calculate measures in
urbanized areas and the non-urbanized
area, and provide consistency in
reporting established targets for those
areas.
The urbanized area boundaries are to
be reported to HPMS in the year the
Baseline Performance Report is due and
are applicable to the entire performance
period, regardless of whether or not
FHWA approved adjustments to an area
boundary during the performance
period for other reasons. Any changes in
urbanized area boundaries during a
performance period would not be
accounted for until the following
performance period.
The FHWA is seeking comments on
this approach for establishing optional
additional targets for urbanized areas
and the non-urbanized area. The FHWA
would also like comments on any other
flexibilities it could provide to or
identify for State DOTs related to the
voluntary establishment of additional
targets. Some examples include:
• Providing options for establishing
different additional targets throughout
the State, particularly for the States’
non-urbanized area; and
• Expanding the boundaries that can
be used in establishing additional
targets (e.g., metropolitan planning area
boundaries, city limit boundaries, etc.).
As described in § 490.105(f), an MPO
would have the option to establish a
quantifiable target for its metropolitan
planning area. As described in 23 CFR
450.312, the boundaries of the
metropolitan planning area include, at a
minimum, the entire existing urbanized
area (as defined by the Census Bureau)
plus the contiguous area expected to
become urbanized within a 20-year
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
forecast period. The FHWA recognizes
the challenges in coordinating targets
between State DOTs and MPOs,
especially in cases where metropolitan
planning areas across multiple State
boundaries. The FHWA intends for
State DOTs and MPOs to collectively
consider goals and issues when
establishing both State DOT and MPO
targets. For reporting purposes, FHWA
expects MPOs to report progress to the
relevant State DOT for the entire
metropolitan planning area.
To illustrate the differences in
boundaries and how they might be
addressed for one of the pavement
condition measures, the following
example is provided regarding the target
establishment boundary differences that
could exist in the State of Maryland
today.
• Urbanized Areas: Based on the 2010
Census, the State of Maryland contains
part or all of 11 urbanized areas. Of
these urbanized areas, 5 are shared with
neighboring States.
• Metropolitan Planning Areas:
Currently, the State contains part or all
of six metropolitan planning areas. Of
these areas, four metropolitan planning
areas are shared with neighboring
States. (A map of Metropolitan Planning
Areas and Urbanized Areas of the State
of Maryland is included in the docket.)
• Statewide Urbanized Area Target
Extent: An optional State target for the
Percentage of Interstate System lanemiles in Good condition within the
State’s urbanized areas would represent
those portions of the 11 urbanized areas
within the geographic boundary of the
State of Maryland, in aggregate.
• Single Urbanized Area Target
Extent: An optional urbanized area
target for a single urbanized area would
represent the anticipated Percentage of
Interstate System lane-mileage in Good
condition within the identified
urbanized area, based on the
corresponding boundary described
Baseline Performance Period Report. In
the case of the Hagerstown urbanized
area, the target would be established for
the portion of the urbanized area in the
State of Maryland.
• MPO Target Extent: Each of the six
MPOs would establish individual
targets for representing the anticipated
Percentage of Interstate System lanemileage in Good condition within their
entire metropolitan planning area,
regardless of State boundary. In the case
of the Hagerstown—Eastern Panhandle
MPO in Maryland/West Virginia/
Pennsylvania, the MPO would establish
target for Interstate System lane-mileage
in Good pavement condition within its
metropolitan planning boundary that
extends beyond Maryland State
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
boundary and into Pennsylvania State
boundary, while the Maryland DOT
would establish its target for the area
only within its State boundary.
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).
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.105(e)(4) that State DOTs establish
targets with a 2-year time horizon (i.e.,
2-year target) and a 4-year time horizon
(i.e., 4-year target) for each performance
period. Each performance period,
defined in § 490.101, would begin on
the January 1 of the year in which the
State DOT target is reported (i.e., State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report required in § 490.107(b)(1)) to
FHWA and would extend for a duration
of 4 years. Additionally, the midpoint of
a performance period would occur 2
calendar years after the beginning of a
performance period. Thus, 2-year targets
would be the anticipated or intended
condition/performance level at the
midpoint of each performance period,
and 4-year targets would be the
anticipated or intended condition/
performance level at the end of each
performance period. It is important to
emphasize that established targets (2year target and 4-year target) would
need to be considered as interim
conditions/performance levels that lead
toward the accomplishment of longerterm performance expectations in the
State DOT’s long-range statewide
transportation plan 45 and NHS asset
management plans.46 As defined in
§ 490.101, a target is a numeric value
that represents a quantifiable level of
condition/performance in an expression
defined by a measure. The FHWA
proposes that a target would be a single
numeric value representing the
intended or anticipated condition/
performance level at a specific point in
time. For example, the proposed
measure, Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition (in
§ 490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage
of lane-miles of the Interstate System in
Good condition (§ 490.307(f)(2))
expressed in one tenth of a percent.
Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for
this measure would be a percentage of
lane-miles of the Interstate System in
Good condition expressed in one tenth
of a percent. As a hypothetical example,
a 2-year target and a 4-year target would
be 39.5% and 38.5%, respectively for
45 23
46 23
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
U.S.C. 135(f).
U.S.C. 119(e).
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
47 23
U.S.C. 150(e).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
biennial performance reporting
requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e);
and
• Report targets using a consistent
performance period as part of the
evaluation of the State DOTs’
effectiveness of performance-based
planning process to the Congress by
October 1, 2017, as required by 23
U.S.C. 135(h).
The FHWA anticipates that the State
DOTs would establish targets for the
measures listed in § 490.105(c) and
report the established targets to FHWA
by the statutory deadline for the first
biennial report of October 1, 2016.47
The FHWA considered a number of
alternatives for a consistent time
horizon (i.e., performance period) across
the State DOTs to ensure consistent
reporting of targets and assessment of
progress toward achieving those targets
for carrying out the requirements in the
statutory provisions.48
In addition, FHWA considered the
data collection cycles associated with
other proposed measures. The FHWA
also assessed the inherent time lag
between data collection and target
establishment due to necessary data
processing, data quality management,
data analysis, and other required
business processes necessary for target
establishment. The FHWA intends to
minimize the time lag between the end
of a performance period and the time of
subsequent biennial performance
reporting under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) to
ensure a timely assessment of progress
toward achieving the targets. Thus,
FHWA proposes that the first 4-year
performance period start on January 1,
2016, and end on December 31, 2019,
and subsequent performance periods
would follow thereafter, for the
measures listed in § 490.105(c). A
diagram for proposed performance
periods for target establishment,
condition/performance measure data
collection and assessment, and biennial
performance reporting is exhibited in
Figure 1.
48 23 U.S.C. 150(e), 23 U.S.C. 135(h), and 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.003</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
the proposed measure Percentage of
pavements of the Interstate System in
Good condition.
The FHWA is proposing this
definitive performance period while
recognizing that planning cycles and
time-horizons for long-term
performance expectations differ among
State DOTs. The FHWA felt that
although differences exist, it was
necessary to utilize a 4-year
performance period considering the
following implementation expectations:
• Provide for a link between the
interim, short-term targets (i.e., 2-year
and 4-year time horizons) to individual
State DOT’s long-term performance
expectations as part of performancebased planning and programming
process;
• Ensure the time horizon is long
enough to allow for condition/
performance change to occur through
the delivery of programmed projects;
• Align the schedule of reporting on
targets and the evaluation of progress
toward achieving the targets with the
343
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
344
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Figure 1, for the first
performance period, the latest measured
condition/performance data through
December 31, 2015, is the baseline
condition/performance. The State DOTs
would establish 2-year targets as the
condition/performance anticipated at a
midpoint, which would be indicated by
the latest measured condition/
performance data through the midpoint
of the performance period (December
31, 2017, for the first performance
period). Similarly, the State DOTs
would establish 4-year targets as the
condition/performance anticipated at
the end of a performance period that
would be indicated by the latest
measured condition/performance data
through the end of the performance
period (December 31, 2019, for the first
performance period). It is important to
note that the frequency of data
collection cycle depends on the
individual measure. For example, the
Interstate System pavement condition
measures provided in § 490.307(a)(1)
and (2) would require a data collection
frequency of 1 year as specified in
§ 490.309(b)(1). Conversely, nonInterstate NHS condition measures,
provided in § 490.307(a)(3) and (4),
respectively, would require a data
collection frequency of 2 years as
specified in § 490.309(b)(2).
Data collection frequency
requirements are defined in the Data
Requirement sections for each measure
in the relevant subparts. This proposed
timeline is intended to: (1) Satisfy the
first State DOT biennial performance
report due on October 1, 2016, as
described in the discussion on
§ 490.107; (2) accommodate data
collection cycles; and (3) minimize the
time lag between the end/midpoint of a
performance period and the following
biennial performance reporting date, as
described in the discussion sections in
§§ 490.107 and 490.109. Baseline
condition and target establishment for
subsequent performance periods would
follow a similar timeline as the first
performance period. The proposed
2-year and 4-year targets are timed so
that the targets are on the same cycle as
the biennial report under 23 U.S.C.
150(e), and are also necessary for FHWA
to determine the significant progress for
NHPP measures as required under 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7). The FHWA must make
this determination every 2 years, after a
State DOT submits each biennial report.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.105(e)(5) that State DOTs report
their established targets (2-year and 4year) and progress toward achieving
their targets in the biennial performance
report required per 23 U.S.C. 150(e) as
specified in § 490.107. As discussed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 490.105(e)(2), State DOT coordination
with relevant MPOs would be required
for selection of targets. Thus, FHWA
proposes that the State DOTs would be
able to provide relevant MPOs’ targets to
FHWA, upon request, each time the
relevant MPOs establish or adjust MPO
targets, described in § 490.105(f).
The FHWA recognizes that State
DOTs would need to consider many
factors in establishing targets that could
impact progress such as uncertainties in
funding, changing priorities, and
external factors (see § 490.109(e)(4))
outside the control of the State DOTs.
Thus, FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(6)
that State DOTs may adjust their
established 4-year targets when they
submit their State Biennial Performance
Report just after the midpoint of the
performance period (i.e., Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
described in § 490.107(b)(2)). This target
adjustment allowance would be limited
to this specific report and not allowed
at any other time during the
performance period. The FHWA feels
that this frequency of adjustment allows
a State DOT to address changes they
could not have foreseen in the initial
establishment of 4-year targets while
still maintaining a sufficient level of
control in the administrative procedure
necessary to carry out these program
requirements in an equitable manner.
For example, the 4-year target
established in 2016 (the 1st State
Biennial Performance Report illustrated
in Figure 1) may be adjusted in 2018
(2nd State Biennial Performance Report
illustrated in Figure 1). The State DOT
would report and justify this adjusted
target in the second State Biennial
Performance Report due on October
2018 (i.e., Mid Performance Period
Progress Report). The details of
reporting requirements for adjusting a
target are discussed in § 490.107(b)(2).
In § 490.105(e)(7), FHWA proposes
that State DOTs are not required to
establish their 2-year targets in the
beginning of the first performance
period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial
Performance Report illustrated in Figure
1) for the Interstate System pavement
condition measures, provided in
§ 490.307(a)(1) and (2). As proposed in
the § 490.105(e)(4) discussion, the first
performance period baseline condition/
performance data would need to be
collected prior to the start of the
performance period for establishing
targets. However, FHWA recognizes that
some State DOTs may not be able to
meet all data requirements in
§ 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the
first proposed performance period for
the Interstate System pavement
condition measure. Thus, FHWA
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposes that for the first performance
period, State DOTs would only be
required to establish their 4-year targets
in the beginning of the first performance
period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial
Performance Report in 2016 illustrated
in Figure 1) for the Interstate System
pavement condition measures. If
necessary, the State DOTs would adjust
their established 4-year targets at the
midpoint of the first performance period
(i.e., the 2nd State Biennial Performance
Report in 2018 illustrated in Figure 1)
as described in § 490.105(e)(6).
Similar considerations should be
made regarding baseline conditions/
performance. For those State DOTs who
may not be able to collect data required
in § 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the
first proposed performance period,
FHWA proposes that such State DOTs
would not be required to establish
baseline condition/performance in the
1st State Biennial Performance Report in
2016, but would update baseline
condition/performance with the 2-year
condition/performance at the midpoint
(2nd State Biennial Performance Report
illustrated in Figure 1) in 2018. Also, at
the midpoint of the first performance
period, FHWA would determine the
State DOT’s 2-year targets for the
Interstate System pavement condition
measures as ‘‘progress not determined’’
for the 2-year significant progress
determination as discussed in
§ 490.109(e)(3).
In § 490.105(f) FHWA proposes MPO
requirements for the establishment of
targets for all measures identified in
§ 490.105(c). These requirements are
being proposed to implement the 23
U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B) target establishment
provisions in a manner that provides for
a level of consistency necessary to
evaluate and report progress at an MPO
and the national level while providing
for a degree of flexibility to support
metropolitan planning needs. The
FHWA also attempted to develop these
target establishment requirements so
that they could be met by all MPOs,
recognizing that MPOs currently vary in
capability, resource availability, and
ability to establish performance targets.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C),
FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(1) that
each MPO would establish 4-year targets
no later than 180 days after the relevant
State DOT establishes its targets,
described in the discussion of
§ 490.105(e)(1). The FHWA recognizes
the burden on MPOs, regardless of size,
to establish targets. In addition, MPOs
are not directly subject to the
requirement to evaluate the progress
toward achieving NHPP targets. As a
result, FHWA proposes in this section
that MPOs would not be required to
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
establish 2-year targets, which are
required of State DOTs under
§ 409.105(d)(4). Thus, in case of the first
performance period, FHWA anticipates
that the State DOTs would establish
targets for the measures listed in
§ 490.105(c) prior to the first State DOT
biennial performance report, and the
MPOs would establish targets no later
than 180 days thereafter. The timeline
for target establishment for State DOTs
is illustrated in Figure 1 in the
discussion of § 490.105(e)(4). If the rule
is effective on or after September 30,
2015, MPOs may not have the
opportunity to establish their own
targets in time for States to consider
those MPO targets when submitting the
1st Baseline Performance Period Report.
The MPOs would be required to
establish targets for all applicable
measures.
Similar to the requirement for State
DOTs, pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in
§ 490.105(f)(2) that MPOs coordinate
with relevant State DOT(s) to establish
consistent targets, to the maximum
extent practicable. This would be done
in accordance with 23 CFR part 450.
As part of the MPO-State DOT
coordination in establishing State DOT
and MPO targets described in the
discussion of § 490.105(e)(2) and (f)(2),
FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(3) that
the MPOs establish targets with a 4-year
performance period identical to the
State DOT’s performance periods
discussed in the Section-by-Section for
§§ 490.101 and 490.105(e)(4). It is
important to emphasize that established
MPO targets (4-year target) must be
considered as interim conditions/
performance levels that lead toward the
accomplishment of longer-term
performance expectations in the longerterm performance expectations in the
MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation
Plan 49 and relevant State DOT NHS
asset management plans.50
The FHWA recognizes the burden on
the MPOs to establish their own
performance targets. Consequently, as
proposed, the MPOs would have the
flexibility to establish their targets using
one of two options. The FHWA
proposes in § 490.105(f)(4) that MPOs
would establish targets, specific to the
metropolitan planning area, by either:
(1) Agreeing to plan and program
projects so that they contribute toward
the accomplishment of the relevant
State DOT targets, or (2) committing to
quantifiable targets for their
metropolitan planning area. This
proposal would give MPOs two options
49 23
50 23
U.S.C. 134(i).
U.S.C. 119(e).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
to establish targets. The MPOs could
establish their own quantifiable targets.
Alternatively, recognizing that the
resource level and capability of some
MPOs to reliably predict performance
outcomes varies across the country,
FHWA is proposing an approach that
would allow MPOs that did not want to
establish their own quantifiable target to
establish targets by supporting the State
DOT targets for performance. The MPOs
would do this through their investment
decisionmaking process. Regardless of
which option MPOs use to establish
targets, FHWA recognizes that the MPOs
may need to work with relevant State
DOTs to coordinate, plan, and program
projects for their planning area.
As stated in the § 490.105(e)(6)
discussion, State DOTs may adjust their
established 4-year targets when they
submit their State Biennial Performance
Report just after the midpoint of the
performance period (i.e., Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
described in § 490.107(b)(2)). The MPOs
are required to establish targets 180 days
after the date on which the relevant
State DOT(s) establishes their targets,
per the MPO target establishment
requirements specified in 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT adjusts a
target, as allowed under the proposed
§§ 490.105(e)(6) and 490.107(b)(2), any
relevant MPOs would be required to
also re-establish targets for the same
measures within 180 days. However,
FHWA is proposing that the MPO only
be required to re-establish the target if
the MPO had originally elected to
establish a target supporting the State
DOT target for that measure. In that case
the adjusted State target could directly
impact an MPO’s investment
decisionmaking. Specifically, FHWA
proposes in § 490.105(f)(7) that if a State
DOT adjusts their 4-year target in the
State DOT’s Mid Performance Period
Progress Report and the MPO
established the relevant target by
supporting the State DOT target as
allowed under § 490.105(f)(4), then the
MPO would be required, within 180
days, to report to the State DOT if they
either: (1) Agree to plan and program
projects so that they contribute toward
the accomplishment of State DOT
adjusted target, or (2) commit to a new
quantifiable 4-year target.
As with State DOTs, FHWA
recognizes that MPOs would need to
consider many factors in establishing
targets, such as uncertainties in funding,
changing priorities, and external factors
outside the control of the MPO. Thus,
FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(8) that
MPOs may adjust their established 4year target in a manner that is consistent
with agreed upon terms documented in
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
345
the relevant Metropolitan Planning
Agreement. The FHWA recognizes that
for many MPOs the establishment of
targets, especially for the first
performance period, would be new and
challenging and that there may be a
need to revisit targets during the 4-year
performance period. The FHWA
requires State DOTs and MPOs to
coordinate with each other throughout
the performance period with respect to
any target adjustments so their targets
are consistent to the maximum extent
practicable.
In § 490.105(f)(9), FHWA proposes
that the method by which MPOs would
report their established baseline
condition/performance, targets, and
progress toward achieving targets would
be as specified in § 490.107(c). The
FHWA further proposes in 490.105(f)(9)
that the State would be able to provide
MPO targets to FHWA on request after
targets are established or adjusted by
MPOs within the State. The FHWA
believes that, through the coordination
between a State DOT and relevant
MPOs, the reporting on MPO progress
can be shared between these two
entities. However, FHWA expects to be
able to request from a State DOT the
MPO targets and reports on progress, as
needed, to better understand
performance expectations and outcomes
in urbanized areas across the country.
The State DOT and MPO would
document the target establishment
reporting process in the Metropolitan
Planning Agreement, in accordance
with 23 CFR 450. The FHWA
encourages State DOTs to work with
multiple MPOs to agree on a process for
reporting that would provide a
sufficient level of consistency to
understand performance in urbanized
areas collectively across the State.
Discussion of § 490.107 Reporting on
Performance Targets
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e), State
DOTs are required to submit reports on
performance targets and progress in
achieving established targets to FHWA
not later than October 1, 2016, and
every 2 years thereafter. The FHWA
evaluated whether there were any
existing reports that could be used to
meet these 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting
requirements. For the non-HSIP related
measures, FHWA determined that none
of the existing reporting requirements
met the statutorily required timing. In
addition, none of the existing reports
currently provide the consistency
needed to implement performance
management nationally. For these
reasons, FHWA proposes a new biennial
report to meet the statutory
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
346
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
The FHWA proposes in § 490.107 for
State DOT performance reporting to be
used—
• In the determination of significant
progress toward achieving NHPP targets;
• to provide some of the information
needed for FHWA to report to Congress
on the performance-based planning
process evaluation of each State DOT as
required by 23 U.S.C. 135(h);
• to understand performance needs,
expectations, and progress at a State,
regional, and national level; and
• to provide for transparency by
communicating the content of the report
to the public on an externally facing
Web site in a downloadable format.
In § 490.107(a), FHWA proposes that
all performance targets described in
§ 490.105 would be subject to biennial
performance reporting in this section.
However, reporting on performance
targets for carrying out the HSIP would
be in accordance with § 490.213. In the
National Performance Measures; HSIP
NPRM, FHWA proposed a 1 calendar
year period as the basis for
measurement, target establishment, and
reporting. As discussed in § 490.101 of
that NPRM, a 1-year period was
proposed to align the safety measures
with the requirements for the common
measures reported as a requirement of
23 U.S.C. 402. The FHWA also proposes
that State DOTs use an electronic
template to deliver the report proposed
in this section. The FHWA intends to
provide additional guidance regarding
the template which will include fields
to capture all of the information that
would be required to be reported under
this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
For consistent State DOT and FHWA
reporting, FHWA proposed a 4-year
performance period in § 490.105(e)(4).
The FHWA recognizes the need for
uniform data collection timing in order
to ensure consistency in reporting and
repeatable target establishment and
progress evaluation processes. Thus, in
subsequent sections, FHWA proposes
the timing of data collection based on
the specified performance periods,
described in § 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA
proposes that data collection
requirements for the established
measures support the reporting
requirements in this section and be in
accordance with the respective Data
Requirements section (e.g., § 490.309)
for each measure. To ensure consistency
in reporting, FHWA proposes that the
reported baseline condition/
performance be derived from the latest
data collected through the begin date of
a performance period, the reported
actual 2-year condition/performance
would be derived from the latest data
collected through the midpoint of a
performance period, and the reported
actual 4-year condition/performance
would be derived from the latest data
collected through the end date of a
performance period. This is illustrated
in Figure 1 in the discussion for
§ 490.105(e)(4).
The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)
that State DOTs submit to FHWA three
types of Biennial Performance Reports:
Baseline Performance Period Report,
Mid Performance Period Progress Report
and Full Performance Period Progress
Report. The FHWA proposes to make a
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
distinction between the three reports to
emphasize the differences in content
while aligning the reporting process to
the proposed target establishment,
progress evaluation, and other
performance reporting requirements.
Figure 2 is a timeline of the proposed
reporting timeline for the Biennial
Performance Reports. The proposed
requirements identify three distinct
biennial reports (baseline, mid and full)
and State DOTs will be expected to
provide information for at least one of
these reports every 2 years. Because
these reports would be required for
consecutive 4-year performance periods,
the information provided in the Full
Performance Period Report would be
provided at the same time and may
include some of the same information as
the Baseline Performance Period Report
for the next performance period. As
discussed previously, FHWA is
proposing to provide for an electronic
template that State DOTs would use to
capture the information required in each
of the three reports discussed in
§ 490.107(b). It is envisioned that this
electronic template would provide the
State DOT all of the relevant fields for
the information that would be due at the
corresponding 2-year point. This
approach would allow State DOTs to
provide all of the required baseline and
progress reporting information at one
time. The proposed regulations identify
three distinct reports to clarify the
purpose and timing of information that
would be required to be reported every
2 years.
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4910–22–C
The FHWA proposes the requirement
for the Baseline Performance Period
Report in § 490.107(b)(1), where the
State DOTs would be required to submit
a Baseline Performance Period Report
no later than October 1 of the first year
of a performance period. The FHWA is
proposing that the first performance
period would begin on January 1, 2016,
which would require State DOTs to
submit their first Baseline Performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Period Report no later than October 1,
2016. Subsequent Baseline Performance
Period Reports would be due no later
than October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
The required contents for the Baseline
Performance Period Report are
discussed in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii). The
FHWA is proposing that the Baseline
Performance Period Report would be the
official source of the non-safety targets
established by the State DOT. To
document the established targets,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
347
FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A)
that State DOTs would report both their
established 2-year and 4-year targets for
each measure listed in 490.105(c) for the
current performance period.
Considering the proposed phase-in of
new requirements for Interstate System
pavement condition measures discussed
in § 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not
be required to report 2-year targets for
Interstate System pavement measures in
the Baseline Performance Period Report
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
348
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
for the first performance period. If a
State DOT elects to establish additional
targets for urbanized and non-urbanized
areas, as described in § 490.105(e)(3),
the State DOT would be required to
include these targets (both 2-year target
and 4-year target) in the report.
Although FHWA would not approve
the State DOT submitted targets, a
discussion of the basis for each
established target would be included in
the Baseline Performance Period Report.
The FHWA believes that this discussion
is needed to explain the State DOT’s
basis for the selection of a target. The
FHWA intends to publish the State DOT
established targets on a publicly
available Web site with the target basis
discussion. It is important to note that,
although other MAP–21 required plans
and reports may discuss and use targets,
FHWA is proposing that only the targets
reported in the Baseline Performance
Period Report and the HSIP report
would be viewed by FHWA as those
that are established by the State DOT to
meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C.
150(d).
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B) that the State DOTs
report baseline condition/performance
associated with each target reported to
represent the latest condition/
performance data collected through the
begin date of a performance period.
Considering the first performance
period is proposed to begin on January
1, 2016, the baseline condition/
performance for this performance period
would be the most recent condition/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
performance that represents actual
condition/performance through
December 31, 2015. Considering the
proposed phase-in of new requirements
for Interstate System pavement
condition measures discussed in
§ 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not
be required to report baseline conditions
for Interstate System pavement
measures in the Baseline Performance
Period Report for the first performance
period. If a State DOT elects to establish
additional targets for urbanized and
non-urbanized areas as described in
§ 490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would
report baseline condition/performance
that represent these areas in addition to
the statewide baseline condition/
performance. As an example, for the
Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition
measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Good condition
(§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth
of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that
a baseline condition/performance for
this measure would be a percentage of
lane-miles of the Interstate System in
Good condition expressed in one tenth
of a percent. As a hypothetical example,
baseline condition/performance would
be 37.7% for the proposed measure
Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs
would be required to also include a
discussion in the Baseline Performance
Period Report, to the maximum extent
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
practical, of how the established 2-year
and 4-year targets support longer term
performance expectations in other
performance-related plans, such as the
State asset management plan and the
long-range statewide transportation
plan.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) that State DOTs
would be required to report the
geographic boundaries and Decennial
Census population data used to
determine target scope, IRI rating and
establish any additional targets for
urbanized and non-urbanized areas.
Similarly, in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
be required to report the NHS network
limits used for target establishment. The
State DOT would report both the
urbanized area boundaries and NHS
limits used for target establishment by
identifying the corresponding data
inventory year of the HPMS that
includes this information. Using HPMS
data items for the data year identified by
the State, FHWA would be able to
extract pavement and bridge condition
data for the appropriate NHS and/or
urbanized area the State DOT used to
establish targets. The FHWA would use
this information in making its progress
determinations in future years. It is the
State’s responsibility to ensure that the
data entered into HPMS reflects the
information that is used for target
establishment.
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4910–22–C
The FHWA proposes the requirement
for the Mid Performance Period Progress
Report in § 490.107(b)(2). In
§ 490.107(b)(2)(i), FHWA proposes that
State DOTs would be required to submit
a Mid Performance Period Progress
Report no later than October 1 of the
third year of a performance period. The
FHWA is proposing that the first
performance period would begin on
January 1, 2016, which would require
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
State DOTs to submit their first Mid
Performance Period Progress Report no
later than October 1, 2018, and
subsequent Mid Performance Period
Progress Reports would be due no later
than October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes
the required contents for the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report. In
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes
that State DOTs would be required to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
349
report 2-year condition/performance in
each Mid Performance Period Progress
Report. As exhibited in Figure 3, FHWA
proposes that the 2-year condition/
performance would be reported to
represent the actual condition/
performance derived from the latest
measured condition/performance
through the midpoint of a performance
period. Considering the first
performance period is proposed to begin
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
350
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
on January 1, 2016, 2-year condition/
performance for this performance period
would be the most recent conditions/
performance that represents actual
conditions/performance through
December 31, 2017 (illustrated in Figure
3).
Considering the proposed phase-in of
new requirements for Interstate System
pavement condition measures discussed
in § 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would be
required to report the 2-year actual
Interstate System pavement conditions
as the baseline condition by updating
their Baseline Performance Period
Report for the first performance period.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) that State DOTs
would also include a discussion of
progress made toward the achievement
of 2-year targets established for the
current performance period. In this
discussion, State DOTs would present a
comparison of 2-year condition/
performance with the 2-year targets that
were established for the performance
period. For example, in the first Mid
Performance Period Progress Report in
2018, a State would compare the actual
condition/performance through 2017
with the 2-year targets established for
the first performance period and discuss
why targets were or were not achieved.
This discussion could describe
accomplishments achieved, planned
activities, circumstances that led to
actual conditions/performance, or any
other information that State DOT feel
would adequately explain progress.
Although this explanation would not be
used in the determination of significant
progress, as described in § 490.109, this
information would be made available to
the public to provide an opportunity for
the State DOT to discuss actual
outcomes achieved. As an example, the
Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition
measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Good condition
(§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth
of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that
a 2-year condition/performance for this
measure would be a percentage of lanemiles of the Interstate System in Good
condition expressed in one tenth of a
percent. As a hypothetical example, 2year condition/performance would be
39.2% for the proposed measure
Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) that, in each Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
State DOTs would include discussion
on the effectiveness of the investment
strategy documented in the State asset
management plan for the NHS. The
FHWA is reserving
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(D). The statutory
requirement for State DOTs to include a
discussion on ways in which State
DOTs are addressing congestion at
freight bottlenecks, including those
identified in the National Freight
Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the
third Performance Measure NPRM. This
content is required as part of the report
under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4). The
FHWA recognizes that the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report for
the first performance period may be
impacted by the timing of the
implementation of the new NHS asset
management plan requirement. The
FHWA intends to issue further guidance
if the timing of this plan would impact
a State DOT’s ability to comply with the
requirements proposed in
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C).
As discussed in § 490.105(e)(6),
FHWA recognizes the challenges that
State DOTs may face in target
establishment and, as a result, proposes
to allow State DOTs to adjust their 4year targets. The FHWA is proposing in
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(E) that State DOTs
would report any adjustments to their 4year targets in the Mid Performance
Period Progress Report. The FHWA
proposes that this target adjustment
allowance would be limited to this
specific report and not allowed prior to,
or following, the submittal of the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report. For
example, if a State DOT elects to adjust
a 4-year target established in its first
Baseline Performance Period Report in
2016, the State DOT would only be able
to adjust the 4-year target in its Mid
Performance Period Progress Report in
2018. In addition to reporting the
adjusted 4-year target, the State DOT
would be required to include a
discussion on the basis for the adjusted
4-year target(s) for the performance
period and a discussion on how the
adjusted targets support expectations
documented in longer range plans, such
as the State asset management plan and
the long-range statewide transportation
plan.
In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F), FHWA
proposes that the State DOTs would
discuss the progress they have made
toward the achievement of the 2-year
targets reported in the current Baseline
51 The performance measures for performance of
the Interstate System and performance of the non-
Performance Period Report that would
had been established for the NHPP
measures specified in § 490.105(c)(1)
through (3).51 Additionally, State DOTs
would provide information to discuss
how the actual 2-year condition/
performance levels compare with the
NHPP targets. Although this discussion
would not be used in the determination
of significant progress for the NHPP,
this information would be made
available to the public to provide an
opportunity for the State DOT to discuss
actual outcomes related to the NHPP.
For example, the State DOT may use
this discussion to explain how they
effectively and efficiently delivered a
program designed to achieve 2-year
targets, how this may have resulted in
actual condition/performance
improvements for the NHPP, and how
the State DOT would deliver a program
to make significant progress toward
achieving 4-year targets for the NHPP.
In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs would report
any factors that it could not have
foreseen and were outside of their
control that impacted its ability to make
significant progress for the NHPP 2-year
targets. This discussion would be used
by FHWA to consider the application of
the proposed consideration of
extenuating circumstances discussed in
§ 490.109(e)(4).
In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(H), FHWA
proposes that if FHWA determines that
a State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement of
NHPP targets, in two consecutive
biennial FHWA determinations, then
the State DOT would include a
description of the actions they will
undertake to better achieve NHPP
targets as required under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7). For example, if either of the
Interstate pavement condition targets
did not make significant progress in
previous two determinations
(determinations at midpoint and the end
of previous performance period), then
the State DOT would include in the
current Mid Performance Period Report
a description of the actions the State
DOT will undertake to improve
conditions with respect to both
Interstate pavement condition measure.
If FHWA determines that the State DOT
has achieved significant progress, then
the State DOT does not need to include
such description in the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report.
Interstate NHS will be proposed in the third
performance measures NPRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
351
Discussion of Full Performance Period Reports
Baseline
Mid
Performance
Mid
Performance
Period
for 1st
Biennial
Performance Reports
Performance
Period
Oct
1,
Period
Oct 1,
1,
Adjustll!d 4·year
for the lst
Performance
Performance
Period
Period (optional)
Determination
Data Collection
for measures
Performance
Period
Period
Performance Period
Figure 4 -Alternating Biennial Performance Reports - The Full Performance Period
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4910–22–C
The FHWA proposes the requirement
for the Full Performance Period Progress
Report in § 490.107(b)(3). In § 490.107
(b)(3)(i), FHWA proposes that State
DOTs be required to submit a Full
Performance Period Progress Report no
later than October 1 of the first year
following the completion of a
performance period. The FHWA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
proposing that the first performance
period would begin on January 1, 2016,
which would require State DOTs to
submit their first Full Performance
Period Progress Report no later than
October 1, 2020, and subsequent Full
Performance Period Progress Reports
would be due no later than October 1
every 4 years thereafter.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA proposes
the required contents for Full
Performance Period Progress Report.
In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would be
required to report 4-year condition/
performance in each Full Performance
Period Progress Report. As exhibited in
Figure 4, FHWA proposes that the 4year condition/performance be reported
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.007</GPH>
Report
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
352
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to represent the actual condition/
performance derived from the latest
measured condition/performance
through the end of a performance
period. Considering the first
performance period is proposed to begin
on January 1, 2016, the 4-year
condition/performance for this
performance period would be the most
recent conditions/performance that
represents actual conditions/
performance through December 31, 2019
(illustrated in Figure 4). As an example,
the Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition
measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Good condition
(§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth
of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that
a 4-year condition/performance for this
measure would be a percentage of lanemiles of the Interstate System in Good
condition expressed in one tenth of a
percent. As a hypothetical example, 4year condition/performance would be
37.7% for the proposed measure
Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B), that the State
DOTs would also include a discussion
of progress made toward the
achievement of 4-year targets
established for the relevant performance
period. In this discussion, State DOTs
would present a comparison of 4-year
condition/performance with the 4-year
targets that were established for the
performance period. For example, in the
first Full Performance Period Progress
Report in 2020, a State would compare
the actual condition/performance
through 2019 with the 4-year targets
established for the first performance
period and discuss why targets were or
were not achieved. This discussion
could describe accomplishments
achieved, planned activities,
circumstances that led to actual
conditions/performance or any other
information that State DOT would feel
would adequately explain progress.
Although this explanation would not be
used in the determination of significant
progress, this information would be
made available to the public to provide
an opportunity for the State DOT to
discuss actual outcomes achieved.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) that, in each Full
Performance Period Progress Report,
State DOTs would include discussion
on the effectiveness of the investment
strategy documented in the State asset
management plan for the NHS. The
FHWA is reserving
§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(D). The statutory
requirement for State DOTs to include a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
discussion on ways in which State
DOTs are addressing congestion at
freight bottlenecks, including those
identified in the National Freight
Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the
third Performance Measure NPRM. This
content is required as part of the report
under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4).
In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(E), FHWA
proposes that the State DOTs would
discuss the progress they have made
toward the achievement of the 4-year
targets reported in the current Baseline
Performance Period Report, or adjusted
in the current Mid Performance Period
Progress Report, that would had been
established for the NHPP measures
specified in § 490.105(c)(1) through
(3).52 Additionally, State DOTs would
provide information to discuss how the
actual 4-year condition/performance
levels compare with the NHPP targets.
Although this discussion would not be
used in the determination of significant
progress for the NHPP, this information
would be made available to the public
to provide an opportunity for the State
DOT to discuss actual outcomes related
to the NHPP. For example, the State
DOT may use this discussion to explain
how they effectively and efficiently
delivered a program designed to achieve
targets and how this may have resulted
in actual condition/performance
improvements for the NHPP.
In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs would report
any factors that it could not have
foreseen and were outside of their
control that impacted its ability to make
significant progress for the NHPP 4-year
targets. This discussion would be used
by FHWA to consider the application of
the proposed consideration of
extenuating circumstances discussed in
§ 490.109(e)(5).
In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA
proposes that if FHWA determines that
a State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement NHPP
targets, in two consecutive biennial
FHWA determinations, then the State
DOT would include a description of the
actions they would undertake to better
achieve NHPP targets as required under
23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if
either of the NHS bridge condition
targets did not make significant progress
in previous two determinations
(determination at the end of previous
performance period and determination
at the midpoint of current performance
period), then the State DOT would
include in the current Full Performance
52 The performance measures for performance of
the Interstate System and performance of the nonInterstate NHS will be proposed in the third
performance measures NPRM.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Period Report) a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to
improve conditions with respect to both
Interstate pavement condition measures.
If FHWA determines that the State DOT
has achieved significant progress, then
the State DOT does not need to include
such description in the Full
Performance Period Progress Report.
The FHWA proposes, in § 490.107(c),
that MPOs document the manner in
which they report their established
targets within the Metropolitan
Planning Agreement required by 23 CFR
450. The MPOs would report their
established targets to the relevant State
DOTs in a manner that is agreed upon
by both parties and documented in the
Metropolitan Planning Agreement. The
FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(5), that
MPOs would report targets to the State
DOT in a manner that would allow the
State DOT to provide FHWA, upon
request, all of the targets established by
relevant MPOs. The FHWA also
proposes that MPOs would report
baseline condition/performance, and
progress toward the achievement of
their targets, in the system performance
report in the metropolitan
transportation plan, in accordance with
23 CFR 450.
Discussion of § 490.109 Assessing
Significant Progress Towards Achieving
the Performance Targets for the NHPP
In § 490.109, FHWA proposes the
method by which FHWA would
determine if a State DOT has achieved
or is making significant progress toward
the achievement of their NHPP
performance targets as required by 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7). Although this
determination could directly impact
State DOTs, MPOs could also be
indirectly impacted as a result of the
link between metropolitan and
statewide planning and programming
decisionmaking. This rulemaking
discusses the approach that would be
taken by FHWA to assess State DOT
performance progress, but does not
include a discussion on the method that
may be used by FHWA to assess the
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. (RIN 2125–
AF52).53
The FHWA recognizes the risks
associated with target establishment and
that there may be factors outside of a
State DOT’s control that could impact
its ability to achieve a target. A number
53 The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at
79 FR 31784.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of factors were raised as part of the
performance management stakeholder
outreach sessions regarding target
establishment and progress assessment,
including: the impact of funding
availability on performance outcomes,
the reliability of the current state-ofpractice 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 with
balancing local and national objectives.
The FHWA considered these risks and
factors in its evaluation of different
approaches to implement this provision.
The FHWA recognizes that the State
DOTs and MPOs have to consider
multiple performance priorities in
making investment trade-off decisions
and that there are challenges with
balancing local and national objectives.
During outreach, stakeholders raised a
number of concerns regarding progress
assessment, including: 54
• The desire to foster balanced and
sound decisions rather than focusing on
achieving one target at the expense of
another;
• the desire to assess progress using
quantitative and qualitative input; and
• the desire to avoid unachievable
targets.
Thus, FHWA plans to implement an
approach that balances the uncertainty
facing State DOTs in predicting future
performance with the need to provide
for a fair and consistent process to
determine compliance. The approach
being proposed by FHWA is based on
the following principles:
• Focus the Federal-aid highway
program on the MAP–21 national goals
in 23 U.S.C. 150(b); and
• recognize that State DOTs need to
consider fiscal constraints in their target
establishment.
Because targets would be established
for an entire system, FHWA
acknowledges that State DOTs may
make small incremental changes within
that system that would not necessarily
appear in a quantitative assessment. In
some instances, even a modest increase
in improvement when evaluating on a
system-wide basis, would constitute
significant progress. Accordingly,
FHWA proposes that for each NHPP
target, progress toward the achievement
of the target would be considered
54 AASHTO (2013), SCOPM Task Force Findings
on MAP–21 Performance Measure Target-Setting.
https://scopm.transportation.org/Documents/
SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20Findings%20
on%20Performance%20Measure%20TargetSetting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
‘‘significant’’ when either of the
following occur: The actual condition/
performance level is equal to or better
than the State DOT established target; or
actual condition/performance is better
than the State DOT identified baseline
condition/performance. The FHWA
believes that any improvement over the
baseline, which represents a 0.1%
improvement over 4 years, should be
viewed as significant progress
considering the fiscal short falls and
financial uncertainties many State DOTs
are faced with today. Although a change
of 0.1% may appear insignificant, this
degree of improvement to a pavement or
bridge system is difficult to achieve. In
many States this level of change would
require improvements to hundreds, if
not thousands, of miles of pavements
and/or bridges. The FHWA reviewed the
extent to which State DOTs have been
able to actually change system
conditions of their pavements and
bridges in recent years to validate this
view of significant progress. This review
supported FHWA’s belief that any
improvement should be considered
significant as many State DOTs have
seen minimal or no improvements in
the condition of their pavement and
bridge networks in recent years. This is
the case even with the influx of funding
State DOTs were able to utilize through
the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. For these
reasons, FHWA believes that any
improvement over the baseline should
be viewed as significant progress.
The FHWA believes that State DOTs
would, through a transparent and public
process, want to establish or adjust
targets that strive to improve the overall
performance of the Interstate and
National Highway systems. For this
reason, FHWA did not want to consider
an approach to determine significant
progress that would be difficult to meet
as it could discourage the establishment
of ‘‘reach’’ targets due to the perceived
unmanageable risks that would need to
be assumed by State DOTs. The FHWA
feels that the progress assessment
approach proposed in this NPRM,
which considers improvement from
baseline conditions to be significant,
would not discourage State DOTs from
establishing targets to improve the
overall conditions of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS.
The FHWA therefore proposes a
three-step process to determine if a State
DOT has made significant progress
toward the achievement of their NHPP
targets. This proposed process would be
completed by FHWA each time the State
DOT submits their Mid Performance
Period Progress Report and their Full
Performance Period Progress Report.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
353
The FHWA proposes that the significant
progress determination process for two
consecutive reporting periods would be
done on an ongoing basis and would not
restart at the beginning of each
performance period.55
• Step 1: The State DOT would
evaluate and report the progress they
have made toward the achievement of
each target.56 This evaluation would be
documented in the discussion of the
progress achieved since the most recent
report. The State DOT would document
in their Biennial Performance Reports
any extenuating circumstances outside
their control they may have impacted
their ability to achieve progress.
• Step 2: The FHWA would review
the completeness of the content
provided in their Biennial Performance
Reports and would determine if any
documented extenuating circumstances
would be considered. State DOTs would
provide any additional information to
FHWA, upon request, if the report is
incomplete.
• Step 3: The FHWA would
determine if the State DOT has made
significant progress for each target using
the following sources:
Æ Data contained within the HPMS
for targets established for pavement
condition measures, as specified in
§ 490.105(c)(1) and (2);
Æ Data contained in the NBI for
targets established for bridge condition
measures, as specified in
§ 490.105(c)(3); and
In § 490.109(a), FHWA proposes that
it would determine whether the State
DOT has achieved or has made
significant progress toward achieving
each of the State DOT targets for the
NHPP measures separately.
The FHWA proposes in § 490.109(b)
that FHWA would determine whether a
State DOT has or has not made
significant progress toward the
achievement of NHPP targets at the
midpoint and the end of each
performance period.
In § 490.109(c), FHWA proposes that
FHWA would determine significant
progress toward the achievement of a
State DOT’s NHPP targets after the State
55 For example, assuming a determination would
be made in 2021, that period-end determination for
1st performance period would be based on
information submitted in the 2016 Mid Performance
Period Report and the 2020 Full Performance
Period Report. The next determination made in
2023 would be based on information submitted in
the 2020 Baseline Performance Period Report/2022
Mid Performance Period Progress Report
Performance Period Report and the 2020 Full
Performance Period Report.
56 The performance measures for performance of
the Interstate System and performance of the nonInterstate NHS will be proposed in the third
performance measures NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
354
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
DOT submittal of the Mid Performance
Period Progress Report and after the
State DOT submittal of the Full
Performance Period Progress Report.
This process, which is described in the
discussion of § 490.107(b), would follow
the proposed schedule illustrated in
Figures 3 and 4. The FHWA would
make a significant progress
determination for the NHPP every 2
years. The FHWA would notify all State
DOTs of the outcome of the
determination within a reasonable time
and would advise any State DOTs that
would need to add additional
information to their next biennial report
(see 450.109(f)). The FHWA intends to
post State DOT targets, actual condition,
and progress reports on an externally
facing Web site. This information would
provide for greater transparency and
allow the public access to the progress
State DOTs have made in achieving
their targets. The FHWA does not intend
to post the significant progress
determinations on the Web site but will
make this information available in an
electronic format on request.
The FHWA also expects that during a
performance period, State DOTs would
routinely monitor leading indicators,
such as program delivery status, to
assess if they are on track to make
significant progress toward achievement
of a State DOT’s NHPP targets. If a State
DOT anticipates it may not make
significant progress, it is encouraged to
work with FHWA and seek technical
assistance during the performance
period to identify the actions that can be
taken to improve progress toward
making significant progress. The FHWA
also seeks comment on whether it
should require State DOTs to more
frequently (e.g., annually) evaluate and
report the progress they have made.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
The FHWA desires to use national
datasets in a consistent manner as a
basis for its determination of a State
DOT’s significant progress toward the
achievement of NHPP targets. The
FHWA is proposing to determine actual
pavement and bridge conditions from
the HPMS and NBI, respectively, in a
manner that could be replicated by State
DOTs and others that may have interest
in assessing actual pavement and bridge
conditions. Thus, in § 490.109(d),
FHWA proposes to use: The HPMS as
the data source to determine actual
pavement conditions; the NBI as the
data source to determine actual bridge
condition measures; and NHS limits and
urbanized area boundaries identified in
the Baseline Performance Period Report.
The data source for performance of the
Interstate System and the non-Interstate
NHS measures will be proposed in the
third Federal-aid Highway Performance
Measures NPRM.
The FHWA is proposing a period of
approximately 60 days for Interstate
pavements and bridges and 90 days for
non-Interstate NHS pavements and
bridges after the State DOT submits data
to the HPMS and NBI for the State DOT
to update the data to address missing or
incorrect data. Considering this time
allowance, FHWA is proposing that
specific dates be established to extract
data from the HPMS and NBI. The
FHWA would use this data to determine
significant progress toward the
achievement of NHPP targets and assess
the pavement and bridge minimum
condition. These dates are necessary in
order to make significant progress
determinations in a timely manner and
to determine compliance with the
minimum condition requirements in
sufficient time to apply any resulting
obligation, transfer, or set-aside
requirements by the next fiscal year.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The FHWA is proposing the following
dates to extract data from the HPMS and
the NBI to determine actual conditions:
• June 15—The FHWA is proposing
to extract data from the HPMS and the
NBI on this date to determine the actual
Interstate System pavement conditions
and NHS bridge conditions. This date is
needed to provide for sufficient time to
carry out any penalties resulting from
non-compliance with the minimum
condition requirements in 23 U.S.C.
119(f);
• August 15—The FHWA is
proposing to extract data from the
HPMS on this date to determine the
actual non-Interstate NHS pavement
conditions. This date is needed to
provide for sufficient time to make a
determination of significant progress for
the achievement of NHPP targets.
In § 490.109(e), FHWA proposes a
process for significant progress
determination for each established
NHPP target. In paragraph (e)(1), FHWA
proposes that FHWA would assess how
the target established by State DOT
compares to the actual condition/
performance using the data/information
sources described in § 490.109(d). In
paragraph (e)(2), FHWA proposes that
FHWA would determine that a State
DOT has made significant progress for
each 2-year or 4-year NHPP target if
either: (i) The actual condition/
performance level is better than the
baseline condition/performance
reported in the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report; or (ii) the
actual condition/performance level is
equal to or better than the established
target. For illustrative purposes, 2-year
and 4-year evaluations where improving
targets were established for the first
performance period are shown in Figure
5.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
project a decline in condition in their
Biennial Performance Reports as
discussed in paragraph
§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). The FHWA
proposes that significant progress could
still be made in cases where the
established target indicates a decline
from (or sustain) the baseline condition/
performance. For the decline/sustain
condition/performance scenario, FHWA
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposes that significant progress is
made for a target when actual condition/
performance level is equal to or exceeds
the target. For illustrative purposes, 2year and 4-year evaluations where
declining targets were established for
the first performance period are shown
in Figure 6.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.008</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
The FHWA recognizes that State
DOTs have to consider their fiscal
constraints in target establishment and
acknowledges that, in some cases,
anticipated condition/performance
could be projected to decline from (or
sustain) the baseline condition/
performance due to lack of funding,
changing priorities, etc. In these cases
State DOTs should document why they
355
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
As discussed in § 490.105(e)(7),
FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs
may not be able to collect the data
required in § 490.309(b)(1) for the
Interstate System pavement condition
prior to the start of the first performance
period. Considering this limitation,
FHWA proposed in § 490.109(e)(3) that
for the first performance period, the
State DOTs would not be required to
report their 2-year targets and their
baseline condition for the Interstate
System pavement condition measures at
the beginning of the first performance
period. Consequently, FHWA proposes
in § 490.109(e)(3) that progress towards
the achievement of 2-year targets for the
Interstate System pavement condition
measures would not be subject to the
FHWA determination under
§ 490.109(e)(2), even if they elect to
collect the data needed to calculate the
Interstate System pavement measures in
the first 2 years of the first performance
period.
The FHWA proposes to accomplish
this by categorizing the 2-year targets for
the Interstate System pavement
condition measures as ‘‘progress not
determined,’’ which would exclude
these targets from the FHWA
determination under § 490.109(e)(2).
The FHWA expects that some State
DOTs would adjust their established 4-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
year targets at the midpoint of the first
performance period because they may
have had limited baseline data available
to them when they first established the
target. For the first performance period,
FHWA would determine significant
progress toward the achievement of a
State DOT’s Interstate System pavement
condition targets based on HPMS data
extracted on June 15 of the year in
which the Full Performance Period
Progress Report is due. The FHWA
recognizes that some State DOTs would
be able to establish and report baseline
condition and 2-year targets for the
proposed Interstate System pavement
condition measures in their first
Baseline Performance Period Report.
However, FHWA proposes that the
process established in this section
applies to all State DOTs in order to
ensure uniformity in the progress
determination process.
In § 490.109(e)(4), FHWA proposes
that if a State DOT does not provide
sufficient data and/or information for
FHWA to make a significant progress
determination for NHPP target(s), then
that State DOT would be deemed to not
have made significant progress made for
those individual NHPP target(s).
If a State DOT encounters extenuating
circumstances beyond its control, the
State DOT would document the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
explanation of the extenuating
circumstances in the biennial
performance report. This explanation
would address factors that the State
DOT could not have foreseen and were
outside of their control when they
established targets at the beginning of
the performance period. If the
explanation is accepted by FHWA, then
the associated NHPP target(s) would be
excluded from FHWA determination
under § 490.109(e)(2). If the explanation
is not accepted by FHWA, then the State
DOT would be deemed to not have
made significant progress for the target.
Extenuating circumstances would
include:
• Natural or man-made disasters
causing delay in NHPP project delivery,
extenuating delay in data collection,
and/or damage/loss of data system;
• sudden discontinuation of Federal
Government furnished data due to
natural and man-made disasters or lack
of funding; and/or
• new law or regulation directing
State DOTs to change metric and/or
measure calculation.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), in
§ 490.109(f), FHWA proposes that if
FHWA determines that a State DOT has
not made significant progress for an
NHPP targets in two consecutive FHWA
determinations, then the State DOT
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.009</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
356
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
would include in its next Biennial
Performance Report a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to
achieve all targets in same measure
group. The FHWA proposed the
measure groups as follow:
• Interstate System pavement
condition—both proposed measures
Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition in
§ 490.307(a)(1) and Percentage of
pavements of the Interstate System in
Poor condition in § 490.307(a)(2);
• Non-Interstate NHS pavement
condition—both proposed measures
Percentage of pavements of the nonInterstate NHS in Good condition in
§ 490.307(a)(3) and Percentage of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in
Good condition in § 490.307(a)(4);
• NHS bridge condition—both
measures Percentage of NHS bridges in
Good condition in § 490.407(c)(1) and
Percentage of NHS bridges in Poor
condition in § 490.407(c)(2);
As a general example of this proposed
approach, when a State DOT has not
made significant progress for any one of
the targets for Interstate System
pavement condition measures, then that
State DOT would include in its next
Biennial Performance Report a
description of the actions the State DOT
will undertake to achieve targets for all
Interstate System pavement condition
measures.
Tables 2 and 3 illustrate this proposed
determination method. Table 2 includes
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
357
the significant progress determination
results in 2019 for the midpoint 1st
performance period and the significant
progress determination in 2021 for the
end of the 1st performance period. Table
3 includes the significant progress
determination results in 2021 for the
end of the 1st performance period
(repeat from Table 2) and the significant
progress determination in 2023 for the
midpoint 2nd performance period. In
this example, a State DOT has
established statewide targets, as
required, for 2 measures: Percentage of
pavements in Good Condition on the
Interstate System and Percentage of
pavements in Poor Condition on the
Interstate System.
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
358
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Example of Significant Progress Determinations in 2019 and 2021
Significant Progr~~
The Percentage of
pavements in Good
Condition on
Interstate Systemstatewide
The Percentage of
pavements in Poor
Condition on
Interstate Systemstatewide
Percentage of
pavements in Good
Condition on nonInterstate NHSstatewide
Percentage of
pavements in Poor
Condition on nonInterstate NHSstatewide
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Percentage of NHS
bridges in Good
Conditionstatewide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
40.0%
Significant Progtess
.Determination for the
fllidpoint .1st Performan~
Period in 2019
~etetmination forthe .~nd
39.5%
39.2%
No
of the 1st Petformancee.
38.5%
37.7%
Yes by
7.0%
5.9%
6.2%
35.0%
34.4%
34.4%
3.8%
2.9%
2.9%
35.0%
34.5%
34.9%
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
actual
better
than the
baseline
Yes by
achieving
the 2year
target
Yes by
achieving
the 2year
target
Yes by
achieving
the 2year
target
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
No
Yes by
5.2%
6.0%
33.3%
33.4%
2.3%
2.2%
34.0%
33.4%
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
actual
better
than the
baseline
Yes by
achieving
the 4year
target
Yes by
achieving
the 4year
target
No
05JAP3
Interstate
System
pavement
condition
NonInterstate
NHS
pavement
condition
NHS Bridge
condition
EP05JA15.010</GPH>
Table 2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
believes that the State DOT’s
descriptions of the actions for all targets
in a same measure group would be more
logical and sensible in managing
performance of relevant network (e.g.
the entire Interstate System) rather than
isolated description on a subset of
network (e.g. pavements in Good
Condition on Interstate System). So,
FHWA proposes that a State DOT would
provide a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve all
targets in the same measure group.
As indicated in the previous
discussion in § 490.109, FHWA would
make the significant progress
determination each time the State DOT
submits its State DOT Mid Performance
Period Progress Report and its State
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOT Full Performance Period Progress
Report. The FHWA proposes that the
significant progress determination
would be done on an ongoing/rolling
basis and would not restart at the
beginning of each performance period.
So in this example, 2 consecutive
reporting would also be the significant
progress determination results in 2021
for the end of the 1st performance
period (repeat from Table 2) and the
significant progress determination in
2023 for the midpoint 2nd performance
period. Note 4-year condition/
performance of the 1st performance
period is the baseline condition/
performance of the 2nd performance
period.
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.011</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
In Table 2 above, the State DOT has
not made significant progress towards
the target for the Percentage of
pavements in Good Condition on the
Interstate System measure in two
consecutive FHWA determinations. So
the State DOT would include in its next
Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Mid
Performance Period Progress Report in
2022) a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve for
both measures—the Percentage of
pavements in Good Condition on
Interstate System and the Percentage of
pavements in Poor Condition on
Interstate System measures.
The FHWA believes that any one of
the targets could impact other targets in
the same measure group and FHWA also
359
360
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Table 3
Example of Significant Progress Determinations in 2021 and 2023
Signifi~ant Progress
Determination for the
endofthe.·lst ..
The Percentage of
pavements in Good
Condition on
Interstate Systemstatewide
The Percentage of
pavements in Poor
Condition on
Interstate Systemstatewide
Percentage of
pavements in Good
Condition on nonInterstate NHSstatewide
Percentage of
pavements in Poor
Condition on nonInterstate NHSstatewide
38.5%
37.7%
No
37.7%
39.5%
39.9%
Yes by
7.0%
5.2%
6.0%
35.0%
33.3%
33.4%
3.8%
2.3%
2.2%
34.0%
33.4%
actual
better
than the
baseline
Yes by
achieving
the 4year
target
Yes by
achieving
the 4year
target
No
6.0%
5.6%
5.6%
33.4%
32.4%
32.5%
2.2%
2.1%
2.0%
33.4%
33.0%
32.7%
achieving
the 2year
target
Yes by
achieving
the 2year
target
Yes by
actual
better
than the
baseline
Yes by
achieving
the 2year
target
No
Interstate
System
pavement
condition
NonInterstate
NHS
pavement
condition
NHS
Bridge
condition
Repeat from Table 2
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.012</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
40.0%
35.0%
Percentage of NHS
bridges in Good
Conditionstatewide
59
Yes by
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In Table 3, the State DOT has not
made significant progress towards the
Percentage of NHS bridges in Good
Condition measure in two consecutive
FHWA determinations. So the State
DOT would include in its next Biennial
Performance Report (i.e. Full
Performance Period Progress Report in
2024) a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve
statewide targets for both measures
Percentage of NHS bridges in Good
Condition and Percentage of NHS
bridges in Poor Condition.
Although State DOTs are required to
include a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve
targets in its next Biennial Performance
Report to meet the requirement in 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and paragraph (f) of this
section, State DOTs should not wait
until next Biennial Performance Report
in taking necessary actions. As
discussed in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) and
(b)(3)(ii)(E), all State DOTs are required
to discuss the progress they have made
toward the achievement of targets
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
established for the NHPP measures in
each of their Biennial Performance
Report. Thus, FHWA expects State
DOTs would routinely monitor leading
indicators, such as program delivery
status and measured data, to assess if
they are on track to make significant
progress for a State DOT’s NHPP targets
and expects State DOTs to be aware of
their progress prior to the time of each
Biennial Performance Report. As
discussed in § 490.109(c), if a State DOT
anticipates it may not make significant
progress, they are encouraged to work
with FHWA and seek technical
assistance during the performance
period to identify the actions that can be
taken in a timely manner to improve
progress toward making significant
progress for the targets reported in
subsequent Biennial Performance
Reports. Thus, in § 490.109(f)(6), FHWA
proposes that the State DOT should,
within 6 months of the significant
progress determination and in a format
that can be made available to FHWA,
document the information specified in
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this section to ensure actions are being
taken to improve progress.
Discussion of § 490.111
by Reference
Incorporation
In § 490.111, FHWA proposes to
incorporate by reference a number of
items. First, FHWA proposes to
incorporate the proposed HPMS Field
Manual to codify the data requirements
for measures, as discussed throughout
Part 490, and to be consistent with
HPMS reporting requirements. The
proposed HPMS Field Manual includes
detailed information on technical
procedures to be used as reference by
those collecting and reporting data for
the proposed measures. The proposed
HPMS Field Manual is included in the
docket.
The FHWA also proposes to
incorporate by reference 10 AASHTO
standards to codify the method and/or
the device used to collect data for the
metrics (i.e., IRI, Cracking_Percent,
rutting, and faulting). These AASHTO
Standards were developed and adopted
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.013</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4910–22–C
361
362
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
by the AASHTO member States as
appropriate national standard practices
for collecting and reporting pavement
and other condition data. The
incorporated standards are included in
the ‘‘Standard Specifications for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, 34th Edition
and AASHTO Provisional Standards,
2014 Edition,’’ which is available for
purchase at: https://
bookstore.transportation.org/item_
details.aspx?ID=2223. The FHWA
believes that the entities most affected
by this proposed regulation, namely
State DOTs and MPOs, already own a
copy of the incorporated AASHTO
standards.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to incorporate
by reference the ‘‘Recording and Coding
Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,’’
which contains all of the NBI Items
listed in subpart D. This guide is
intended for use by States, Federal
agencies, Tribal governments and other
bridge owners in recording and coding
the data items that comprise the NBI.
The Guide is available at no charge on
the FHWA Web site at: https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm, and
is also included in the docket.
A copy of all of the incorporated
documents outlined above will be on
file and available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records
Administration. These documents will
also be available for viewing at the
Department of Transportation Library.
B. Section-by-Section Discussion for
Subpart C: NHPP Measures for
Assessing Pavement Condition
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Discussion of § 490.301
Purpose
This section describes the general
purpose of the proposed subpart: To
implement certain portions of 23 U.S.C.
150(c) that require FHWA to establish
performance measures to assess the
condition of pavement on the Interstate
System, performance measures to assess
the condition of pavement on the nonInterstate NHS, minimum levels for the
condition of pavement on the Interstate
System, pavement data elements that
are necessary to collect and maintain
standardized data to carry out a
performance-based approach, and
consider regional differences in
establishing the minimum levels for
pavement condition.
Discussion of § 490.303
Applicability
The FHWA proposes to specify
pavement condition performance
measures that would be applicable to all
mainline Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS pavements covered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
under 23 U.S.C. 119 regardless of
ownership or maintenance
responsibility. Specifically excluded are
ramps, shoulders, turn lanes, crossovers,
rest areas, and non-normally traveled
pavement surfaces that are not part of
the roadway normally traveled by
through traffic.
Discussion of § 490.305 Definitions
The FHWA proposes a set of
definitions that are specific only to this
subpart. The FHWA proposes to include
definitions for three types of pavements:
‘‘asphalt pavements,’’ ‘‘Continuously
Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP),’’
and ‘‘Jointed Concrete Pavements,’’
because data requirements and metrics
for the proposed measure are dependent
on surface type of pavement. The
FHWA recognizes some pavements are
composite pavements that consist of
multiple pavement types, such as an
asphalt pavement overlay over an older
jointed concrete pavement. The FHWA
believes it is sufficient for the purpose
of this rulemaking and for improved
consistency to consider the pavement
type of any composite pavement as the
pavement type that exists in the surface
of the structure (or the top-most layer).
The need for consistent definitions
was reinforced by a national study on
pavement roughness 62 and a regional
study on highway infrastructure
health.63 These studies found that both
measured roughness and distress data
are not consistently collected and
reported by State DOTs across the
country. The FHWA is addressing this
need by proposing definitions for
cracking, faulting, IRI, punchout, and
rutting.64
The FHWA proposes to define
‘‘Cracking’’ as a metric that would be
used for determining pavement
condition and a definition for ‘‘Cracking
Percent’’ that would be used to express
the percentage of cracking exhibiting in
a pavement surface. The FHWA
proposes to define ‘‘Cracking Percent’’
separately for each type of pavement.
62 AASHTO (2008). Comparative Performance
Measurement: Pavement Smoothness, NCHRP 20–
24(37B). https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
archive/NotesDocs/20-24(37)B_FR.pdf.
63 FHWA (2012). Improving FHWA’s Ability to
Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study
Report, FHWA–HIF–12–049. https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/
hif12049.pdf.
64 More information about the defined terms
associated with pavement ‘‘cracking,’’ ‘‘faulting,’’
‘‘punchouts,’’ ‘‘rutting,’’ etc., can be found in the
‘‘Distress Identification Manual’’ published by
FHWA. See FHWA 2003, Publication No. FHWA–
RD–03–031 ‘‘Distress Identification Manual for the
Long-Term Pavement Performance Program.’’
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/
infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/reports/03031/
03031.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The FHWA proposes to define
‘‘Faulting’’ and ‘‘International
Roughness Index’’ to avoid confusion
with any other uses of these terms as
these pavement conditions are broadly
defined. The FHWA believes that these
proposed definitions would provide
greater consistency for characterizing
pavement condition for the proposed
measure.
For purposes of this subpart, the
FHWA proposes to define ‘‘pavement’’
as any hard surfaced travel lanes of any
highway. While there are many
definitions currently in practice, FHWA
selected this proposed definition
because it focuses on the surface of the
pavement, which is what would
actually be measured and evaluated to
assess pavement condition. The FHWA
proposes to include the definition of
‘‘Pavement Surface Rating (PSR)’’
because PSR values were previously
permitted to be submitted in the HPMS
in lieu of IRI, if IRI values were not
available or obtainable. Under this
proposal, PSR could not be used in lieu
of IRI to measure or rate NHS pavement
condition.
The FHWA proposes to include the
definition of ‘‘punchout’’ as a pavement
failure specific to CRCP condition that
needs to be evaluated for the
performance measures.
The FHWA proposes to define
‘‘rutting’’ because it is another pavement
failure condition that needs to be
evaluated for the performance measures.
The FHWA proposes to include the
definition of ‘‘sampling’’ because it is an
approach to data collection that is
referenced in this NPRM. The sampling
of some pavement condition data that is
currently permitted on non-Interstate
NHS routes would be discussed in this
subpart.
Discussion of § 490.307 National
Performance Management Measures for
Assessing Pavement Condition
The next several sections discuss the
measures that are proposed to assess
pavement condition. This first section
introduces the proposed measures and
the following sections discuss the
metrics, data requirements, and
processes for calculating the measures.
Once the measures have been
established by FHWA, they would be
used by States and MPOs for the
establishment of targets and in the
determination of progress toward the
achievement of targets for pavement
condition. In addition, FHWA would
use these measures to assess compliance
with the minimum condition of
Interstate System pavements as required
in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The establishment of a measure for
pavement condition poses challenges
because current State DOT measure
definitions and data collection
approaches vary across State DOTs and
local agencies and there is limited
availability of consistent data at a
national level. A summary of the
challenges associated with developing
national measures as documented in
national studies 65 66 is provided below:
• Data items collected varies across
agencies.—The data items the State
DOTs collect and the frequency with
which they are collected, although
similar, vary across the agencies. For
example, Colorado DOT collects
cracking, rutting and IRI, but Florida
DOT collects surface distress, faulting,
rutting, and IRI.
• Data collection protocols vary
across agencies.—While FHWA,
AASHTO, and the American Society for
Testing and Materials have all issued
standards for the terminology,
definitions, and data collection
techniques, a recent national study
indicated that there is still variation in
defining types of pavement failures and
collection methods used by highway
and local transportation agencies. In
addition, while fully automated and
semi-automated technologies have
gained wide acceptance in pavement
condition data collection, some State
DOTs still use manual surveys
(including walking and windshield
surveys).
• Data collection coverage varies
across State DOTs and local agencies.—
The extent of the pavement system that
is monitored for condition assessment
differs across State DOTs and local
agencies where there is no consistency
in the number of directions, the number
of lanes, and the percentage of system
length that are collected. Methods for
determining the number and locations
of samples vary among different State
DOTs and the statistical significance of
these sampling techniques is largely
unknown.
• Reporting intervals vary across
State DOTs.—Pavement condition data
is typically aggregated in pavement
sections for reporting. The section
lengths of pavement condition vary
from 0.01 to 1 mile or more depending
on State DOT.
• Pavement condition metrics and
measures vary across State DOTs.—The
65 NCHRP (2009) Quality Management of
Pavement Condition Data Collection, NCHRP
Synthesis 401. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_401.pdf.
66 FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality
Management of Pavement Condition Data
Collection. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/
management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
State DOTs evaluate the condition and
anticipated performance of pavements
differently. Not all State DOTs classify
pavements as Good, Fair or Poor. The
State DOTs that do classify pavements
as Good, Fair, or Poor, each have unique
definitions for these terms.
• Data Quality Management practices
vary among State DOTs from highly
elaborate systems to none at all.
Considering these challenges, FHWA
proposes to establish the following as
part of this rulemaking: (1) State DOTs
and MPOs use a set of national
measures that are based on broadly
accepted metrics to assess pavement
conditions; and (2) data elements and
consistent data collection and
management practices for pavement
condition assessment that allow State
DOTs and MPOs to continue with most
of their current pavement management
practices.
In § 490.307, FHWA proposes
performance measures to assess the
pavement condition of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS. The
performance measures for pavements on
the Interstate System and the nonInterstate NHS would be the Percentages
of lane-miles classified in Good and
Poor Condition. The State DOTs and
FHWA would classify each section of
pavement as Good, Fair, or Poor, based
on measurements of IRI, percentage of
cracking, and either percentage of
rutting or faulting in each pavement
section. Pavement sections would be
uniform in size, except as provided in
§ 490.311(c)(1), and would be defined
using inventory data items that establish
the location, number of lanes, surface
type, and whether a bridge exists in the
section. These measurements would be
rated for severity and combined into an
overall rating for each section of
pavement. The State DOTs would use
overall ratings for sections contained in
the appropriate highway system to
establish targets and report progress
toward the achievement of those targets.
The FHWA believes that the inclusion
of IRI in the measure is essential to
capture the extent that pavement
conditions are affecting the operation of
the highway. Thus, if IRI is excessive,
traffic would operate at slower speeds to
avoid damage to vehicles, maintain
safety, cause less discomfort to
passengers, and avoid damage to cargo.
Inclusion of Cracking_Percent, rutting
and faulting in the measures captures
the extent of pavement structural
deterioration and liability for future
maintenance and reconstruction. The
State DOTs currently use similar
measurements and data items in their
Pavement Management Systems, but
typically use different standards for data
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
363
collection and different methods for
guiding pavement decisions. The FHWA
recognizes the importance of
standardization of data collection and
data management practices and
identifies critical data collection
practices and methods in § 490.309.
Relationship between § 490.309 (Data
Requirements), 490.311 (Calculation of
Pavement Metrics), and 490.313
(Calculation of Pavement Management
Measures)
The proposed approach to
determining pavement measures
includes data requirements, methods to
determine pavement, and methods to
calculate pavement condition. This
proposed approach is presented in the
next three sections as follows:
• Data Requirements—§ 490.309
outlines the data necessary to determine
a set of metrics that would be reported
to the HPMS and then used to calculate
pavement measures. The type of data to
be collected, the methods of data
collection, and the extent and frequency
of collection are all proposed in this
section.
• Pavement Metrics—§ 490.311
describes a set of metrics that would be
calculated from the data collected. The
proposed pavement metrics would be
calculated for sections of highway
pavement and reported by the State
DOT to the HPMS.
• Pavement Measures—§ 490.313
provides the method to calculate
measures using the metrics reported in
the HPMS. The State DOTs would use
the measures to report the condition of
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS pavements and establish targets
and report on progress.
Discussion of § 490.309 Data
Requirements
Even before the passage of MAP–21,
FHWA and stakeholders recognized the
need for standardized data collection.
The pavement community (i.e., FHWA,
States, local agencies, private industry
and academia) is continuing to conduct
research to refine and standardize data
collection, reporting and production.
The following are provided as example
of efforts that are underway, or have
recently been completed, that support
the national pavement performance
measure:
• Evaluate differences in State DOTs
data sources and the HPMS data sources
and provide recommended actions to
improve any consistency issues.67
• Build on existing work to document
the current approaches used by State
67 AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20–
24(82) ‘‘Improving Consistency in HPMS Pavement
Data.’’
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
364
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
DOTs to rate overall pavement
condition and to drive pavement
investment decisionmaking.68 The
outcome of this report would
recommend approaches that State DOTs
can use to develop a national pavement
performance measure that has the least
impact on current practices to rate
condition.
The FHWA is proposing in § 490.309
the data requirements needed to
calculate the proposed pavement
performance measures, including the
incorporation by reference of the FHWA
HPMS Field Manual 69 (‘‘HPMS Field
Manual’’) by reference. These
requirements are necessary in order to
calculate the pavement conditions
measures discussed in § 490.313. The
existing HPMS was selected as the
reporting mechanism for this proposed
subpart because State DOTs are familiar
with this data source and its content. In
addition, the current HPMS reporting
frequency closely aligns with this
proposal. The following section
discusses the relevant requirements of
the Field Manual. Note that definitions
and language from the HPMS Field
Manual have been used in the subpart
to avoid confusion.
In § 490.309(a), FHWA proposes that
State DOTs and other local agencies
collect data in accordance with the
HPMS Field Manual to report four
condition metrics: IRI, rutting, faulting,
and Cracking_Percent. Nearly all State
DOTs 70 currently collect these metrics
using similar data collection processes
that are based on existing AASHTO
Standards and required for HPMS
submittals. In addition to the four
condition metrics, FHWA proposes that
State DOTs provide three HPMS
inventory data elements that define the
pavement sections used to calculate the
proposed pavement condition. These
three inventory data elements include:
Through Lanes, Surface Type, and
Structure Type. The data elements
identified in this proposed subpart are
considered necessary to collect and
maintain standardized data to carry out
a performance-based approach as
required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iv).
In § 490.309(b), FHWA proposes data
requirements that are necessary to
calculate the four proposed metrics for
pavements on the Interstate System and
68 AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20–
24(37J) ‘‘Comparative Study on Pavement Structural
Adequacy.’’
69 FHWA (2013) HPMS Field Manual. https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/
fieldmanual/.
70 FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality
Management of Pavement Condition Data
Collection. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/
management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
on the non-Interstate NHS. The
proposed requirements in this section
define what data would be required to
be collected, how extensive the data
collection would be, and how often the
data would need to be collected. To
ensure data consistency between the
data collection cycles, FHWA proposes
that data would be collected in the
rightmost lane of travel, or in one
consistent lane if the rightmost lane is
not accessible. Additional data
collection requirements specified in this
section would be more stringent than
current HPMS requirements in the
following areas:
1. State DOTs would be required to
collect data on the full extent of
Interstate System to calculate the four
metrics and on the full extent of the
NHS to identify the three data elements.
2. Beginning in 2018, State DOTs
would be required to collect data on the
full extent of non-Interstate NHS to
calculate the 4 metrics.
3. States DOTs would be required to
collect data in both directions of travel
of the Interstate System to calculate the
four metrics and identify three data
elements.
4. States DOTs would be required to
collect data on the full Interstate System
annually and calculate the four metrics.
5. States DOTs would be required to
collect data on the non-Interstate NHS
biennially after the transition period
ending December 31, 2017.
The FHWA proposes the specific data
collection requirements for Interstate
System pavements in § 490.309(b)(1)
and for non-Interstate NHS pavements
in § 490.309(b)(2). The FHWA
recognizes that although these proposed
data collection requirements would be
similar to current HPMS data collection
practices, they would, in some aspects,
increase the burden on State DOTs to
assess pavement condition for national
reporting. The FHWA feels that this
increased level of effort is necessary to
improve consistency and to ensure more
accurate and timely reporting of
national pavement conditions.
Currently, State DOTs typically manage
and maintain each direction of the
Interstate System as separate roadways
and only report in one direction. The
FHWA feels that reporting the
measurement in both directions is
essential to this process.71
As part of HPMS submittal, State
DOTs have been required to collect and
report IRI data on the full length of the
NHS annually. In addition, as of 2010,
71 FHWA (2012).Improving FHWA’s Ability to
Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study
Report, FHWA–HIF–12–049. https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/
hif12049.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
State DOTs have been required to
collect and report rutting, Cracking_
Percent, and faulting conditions using a
sampling approach for all Federal-aid
eligible roadway pavements. Since
2010, FHWA’s review of HPMS data
submittals has exposed many
inconsistencies in State DOT submittals.
For the Interstate System several State
DOTs have not submitted any Cracking_
Percent, faulting or rutting data; others
have submitted data only for a limited
portion of the roadway network; and
many anomalies have been found in the
data that have raised questions
regarding the accuracy of the data.
Inconsistencies in State DOT submittals
are not unexpected. While sampling can
be a valid process for handling large
quantities of data, it is only
representative of actual pavement
conditions when it follows a known
distribution, such as a normal
distribution and the data is collected
randomly. Neither of these conditions
exist for pavements on the NHS.
Collecting data on a truly random basis
is not practical or desirable for States to
use for managing pavement programs.
Furthermore, the States are adopting
automated devices for data collection
for reasons of objectivity and safety for
personnel. Although these devices are
not a perfect replacement for manual
surveys, they are rapidly developing
and are making the need for sampling
pavement data obsolete. For these
reasons, FHWA is proposing to prohibit
the practice of expanding samples to
populate the HPMS with data for the
full extent of the system. The FHWA
wants data collected for the full extent
of both the Interstate System and the
NHS.
The FHWA recognizes the increased
burden imposed on State DOTs for full
extent data collection for mainline
highways on the non-Interstate NHS. In
consideration of this fact, FHWA is
proposing in § 490.309(b)(2)(i)(E) to
reduce the current frequency of
reporting for IRI on the non-Interstate
NHS from annual reports to biennial
reporting. In addition, FHWA proposes
in § 490.309(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) a phasedin approach to comply with data
collection requirements of the nonInterstate NHS. This approach allows
State DOTs to phase in these new data
collection requirement while continuing
their existing HPMS reporting practices
through the data collection cycle ending
on December 31, 2017 (the 2nd Data
Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below). By
December 31, 2019, all State DOTs
would have a completed data collection
cycle (the 3rd Data Collection Cycle in
Figure 7 below) conforming to the new
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
365
requirements. In addition to reducing
the immediate burden to State DOTs,
FHWA proposes this transition period
so that it will align with the State DOT
biennial performance reporting
requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). As
proposed in §§ 490.105 and 490.107 on
State DOT target establishment and
reporting requirements, State DOTs are
required to establish targets in Calendar
Year 2016 for a performance period
ending in December 31, 2019. Thus, the
data collected during the data collection
cycle ending on December 31, 2019 (the
3rd Data Collection Cycle in Figure 7
below), would be used to: (1) Assess
target achievement for the targets
established in 2016; and (2) establish a
baseline for new targets in 2020 for the
performance period ending on
December 31, 2023.
In the case of the non-Interstate NHS,
a State DOT has a biennial data
collection cycle. In the first two data
cycles, a State DOT would collect data
for the full extent of the system to allow
for reporting of the IRI metric for the
non-Interstate NHS. However, data
collected to support the faulting, rutting,
and Cracking_Percent would be
required only in sample panels of the
system to meet HPMS reporting
requirements and would not be required
to calculate the pavement condition
measure proposed in this rulemaking.
Beginning with the third data collection
cycle (the latest data collection cycle
that ends on December 31, 2019; see
Figure 7), and continuing with
subsequent cycles, State DOTs would be
required to collect data for the full
extent of the system to report the IRI,
faulting, rutting and Cracking_Percent
metrics.
To ensure the collection of data in a
consistent manner to provide for
credible national performance/condition
reporting, FHWA proposes in
§ 490.309(b)(3) the use of the AASHTO
data collection standards for supporting
the proposed measure. The section
provides specific data collection
standards, where appropriate, and
incorporates the AASHTO standards by
reference. The AASHTO standards are
proposed because they are considered as
best practices, specifically by State
DOTs, and are recognized worldwide. A
summary of proposed data collection
standards is presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4—A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DATA COLLECTION STANDARDS
Proposed protocol
IRI for all Pavement Types ..
• IRI collection device in accordance with AASHTO Standard M328–14.
• Collection of IRI data in accordance with AASHTO Standard R57–14.
• Either manual cracking data collection and analysis in accordance with AASHTO Standard R55–10 (2013) or
Automated Cracking Data Collection and Analysis in accordance with AASHTO Standard PP67–14 and
AASHTO Standard PP68–14.
• Percentage of pavement surface with longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts, spalling or other visible defects
(as described in the HPMS field manual).
• Transverse cracking in CRCP is not included in the cracking computation.
• Either the 5-Point Collection of Rutting Data method in accordance with AASHTO Standard R48–10 (2003) or
the Automated Transverse Profile Data method in accordance with AASHTO Standard PP69–14 and AASHTO
Standard PP70–14.
• Measured pavement profiles using AASHTO Standard R36–13.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Cracking_Percent for all
Pavement Types (Except
CRCP).
Cracking_Percent for CRCP
Rutting for Asphalt Pavements.
Faulting for Jointed PCCP ...
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.014</GPH>
Data metric
366
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In § 490.309(c), FHWA proposes the
data collection requirements to identify
the three data elements that State DOTs
would be required to use to calculate
the performance measures. These are
essentially highway inventory items that
are already reported by State DOTs to
the HPMS. These data elements define
the type of pavement, and whether or
not there is a bridge at that location.
Consistent with all of the pavement
conditions and measures on the NHS,
FHWA proposes that these elements be
measured and not estimated from
samples. This proposed approach would
help achieve standardized data
collection at a national level.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Discussion of § 490.311 Calculation of
Pavement Metrics
In § 490.311, FHWA proposes the
method to calculate and report the four
pavement metrics and three inventory
data elements discussed in § 490.309(a)
from the data collected. The FHWA is
proposing specific methodologies for
calculating the metric, where
appropriate, and incorporates the HPMS
Field Manual by reference for any areas
not specifically covered. The metric and
inventory data element reporting
requirements specified in this section
would be more stringent than current
HPMS requirements in the following
areas:
1. The States DOTs would be required
to report the four metrics and three
inventory data elements in segments of
0.1 mile.
2. The States DOTs would be required
to report the four metrics and three
inventory data elements biennially for
the non-Interstate NHS after the
transition period ending December 31,
2019.
3. The State DOTs would be required
to report the four metrics and three
inventory data elements to the HPMS by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
April 15 each year for Interstate System
pavements.
The FHWA is proposing in
§ 490.311(b) that State DOTs calculate
the IRI metric from profile data in
accordance with AASHTO Standard
R43–13. The metric would be reported
for all pavements as the average value
in inches per mile, rounded to the
nearest whole number, for each section.
This method has been widely adopted
by State DOTs for determining the IRI
metric.72 In addition, FHWA would not
permit IRI to be estimated from a PSR
or other observation-based methods.
Because of differences in the
engineering properties, the
Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting
metrics are calculated differently for
each type of pavement. The FHWA
proposes in § 490.311(b)(2) that for
asphalt sections, the Cracking_Percent
metric would be computed as the
percentage of the total area, to the
nearest whole percent, that are
exhibiting cracking, and the rutting
metric would be computed as the
average depth of rutting, to the nearest
0.05 inch, for the section. The FHWA
proposes in § 490.311(b)(3) that for
CRCP, the Cracking_Percent metric
would be computed as the percentage of
the area, to the nearest whole percent,
of the full section exhibiting
longitudinal cracking, punchouts,
spalling, or other visible defects. In
addition, FHWA proposes in
§ 490.311(b)(3) that transverse cracking
not be considered in the computation
for the Cracking_Percent metrics for
CRCP because transverse cracking is not
considered a pavement failure indicator
for CRCP. The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.311(b)(4) that for jointed concrete
72 FHWA 2013, Practical Guide for Quality
Management of Pavement Condition Data
Collection. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/
management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pavement, the Cracking_Percent metric
would be computed as the percentage of
slabs, to the nearest whole percent,
within the section that exhibit cracking.
The FHWA proposes that partial slabs
should contribute to the section that
contains the majority of the slab length.
In addition, FHWA proposes that the
faulting metric would be computed as
the average height, to the nearest 0.05
inch, of faulting between pavement
slabs for the section.
The type and extent of cracking used
for the Cracking_Percent metric varies
by pavement type. For asphalt pavement
the Cracking_Percent metric considers
all cracking present in the section area,
for jointed concrete pavements the
Cracking_Percent metric considers any
crack present in a slab within the
section, and for CRCP the
Cracking_Percent metric considers only
longitudinal cracking in the section area
(plus the additional non-cracking
related items discussed in
§ 490.311(b)(3)). The metric calculations
of Cracking_Percent for different
pavements are proposed to align with
existing HPMS practices and avoid the
need for major changes in measurement
and calculation practices by State DOTs.
In § 490.311(c)(1), FHWA proposes all
pavement metrics and data inventory
elements be reported in uniform 0.1mile sections. Shorter sections may be
used at the beginning of a route, end of
a route, or at locations where a section
length of 0.1 mile is not achievable. The
FHWA feels that a consistent reporting
interval reduces discrepancies in
calculating the percentages of system
sections classified in Good, Fair, or Poor
Condition that are associated with
varied section lengths. In Figure 8, a 1⁄2mile road measured at both the 0.1-mile
interval and at 0.5-mile section shows
the following hypothetical results.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
For the 0.1-mile sections shown in
Figure 8(a), 40 percent of the road is
classified Good, 20 percent of the road
is classified Fair, and 40 percent of the
road is classified Poor when pavement
conditions are measured. However,
when the same road pavement
conditions are measured at a 0.5-mile
interval as shown in Figure 8(b), the
entire roadway (100 percent) may be
summarized (i.e., averaged) to be Fair,
which presents a very different account
of pavement condition for this length of
roadway as compared to an approach
that uses a shorter section length to
report condition. This 0.1 mile uniform
section length, which is proposed to be
used for the Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS, is supported by a
recommendation provided by
stakeholders.73 The FHWA requests
comments on whether a 0.1 mile
uniform section length is appropriate for
both the Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.311(c)(2) that State DOTs provide
a single value for each of the four
metrics and three data elements for each
1⁄10 mile segment reported to the HPMS
per year. The FHWA feels that using
uniform section lengths to report to the
HPMS will improve consistency.
Considering this, FHWA proposes that
State DOTs would not be allowed to
break a 1⁄10 mile section into multiple
shorter sections unless the 1⁄10 section is
truncated at the termini of a roadway. A
State DOT would also not be allowed to
73 AASHTO
(2013). SCOPM Task Force Findings
on MAP–21 Performance Measure Target-Setting.
AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance
Management. https://scopm.transportation.org/
Documents/SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20
Findings%20on%20Performance%20Measure%20
Target-Setting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).
pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
submit multiple entries for the four
metrics and three data elements for the
same 1⁄10 mile section length. This
redundant reporting would be
considered invalid data and would be
subject to the requirement specified in
§ 490.313.
Section 490.311(c)(3) proposes that
State DOTs would report for each
section containing any of the four
metrics or three inventory data elements
a time and location reference. The
HPMS includes a standard location
referencing framework that would be
required under this proposal, which
includes the State_Code, Route_ID,
Begin_Point, and End_Point. The date
for which the data represents for each
section would be reported as year in the
HPMS Year_Record field for each of
sections containing any of the four
metrics or three inventory data
elements. In addition, the Value_Date
field would be reported as the month
and year of data collection for each of
the sections containing any of the four
metrics. This data information is needed
to associate the reported condition
metric to the performance year.
Section 490.311(c)(4) provides that
State DOTs report the four metrics and
three inventory data elements for the
Interstate System to the HPMS no later
than April 15 of each calendar year. The
information reported to the HPMS
would be calculated from data collected
from roadway sections in the prior
calendar year. For example, the data
collected from January 1, 2016, through
December 31, 2016, would be used to
calculate the four metrics and three
inventory data elements that would be
reported to the HPMS no later than
April 15, 2017. Additionally, FHWA is
proposing in § 490.311(c)(5) that State
DOTs report the four metrics and three
inventory data elements for the non-
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
367
Interstate NHS to the HPMS no later
than June 15 of each calendar year, the
current due date to report to the HPMS.
Discussion of § 490.313 Calculation of
Performance Management Measures
In § 490.313, FHWA proposes the
method for calculating the pavement
measures using the pavement metrics
and data elements. In § 490.313(a),
FHWA proposes how the pavement
measures would be used by FHWA,
State DOTs, and MPOs.
In § 490.313(b), FHWA proposes the
method to calculate condition ratings
that would use a Good, Fair, and Poor
rating approach for each of the four
pavement metrics discussed in
§ 490.311. This approach would use
thresholds that would be applied to
each of the four pavement metrics to
determine the condition rating of Good,
Fair, or Poor. The proposed thresholds
are based on documented research. As
an example, the proposed pavement
rutting thresholds have been correlated
to threshold levels that minimize the
risk of vehicle hydroplaning.74
The FHWA proposes in § 490.313(b),
the criteria to determine Good, Fair and
Poor pavement condition ratings using
each metric. These proposed criteria are
based on the levels used by FHWA to
report ride quality conditions for the IRI
metric and the default design criteria
thresholds established for the
Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design
Guide.75 The proposed criteria to
74 ‘‘Potential Safety Cost-Effectiveness of Treating
Rutted Pavements’’ by Start, M R,Kim, J,Berg, W D;
Transportation Research Record, Issue Number:
1629, Publisher: Transportation Research
Board,ISSN: 0361–1981.
75 The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures’’,
NCHRP 1–37A, 2004, https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
Continued
05JAP3
EP05JA15.015</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
368
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
determine Good, Fair, and Poor ratings
are summarized in Table 5. The FHWA
encourages comments on the
appropriateness of these proposed
criteria and any alternative levels that
would be appropriate for network level
condition assessment.
TABLE 5—PROPOSED PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING THRESHOLDS
Surface type
Metric
Metric range
All pavements ...........................................
IRI ............................................................
<95 ...........................................................
95–170: Areas with a population less
than 1,000,000.
95–220: Urbanized areas with a population of at least 1,000,000.
>170: Areas with a population less than
1,000,000.
>220: Urbanized areas with a population
of at least 1,000,000.
<5% ..........................................................
5–10% ......................................................
>10% ........................................................
<0.20 ........................................................
0.20–0.40 .................................................
>0.40 ........................................................
<0.05 ........................................................
0.05–0.15 .................................................
>0.15 ........................................................
<5% ..........................................................
5–10% ......................................................
>10% ........................................................
Cracking_Percent .....................................
Asphalt Pavement ....................................
Rutting ......................................................
Jointed Concrete Pavement .....................
Faulting ....................................................
CRCP .......................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Asphalt Pavement and Jointed Concrete
Pavement.
Cracking_Percent .....................................
Overall pavement condition is
derived from the policies that State
DOTs use for initiating construction
activities for maintenance and/or safety
repairs. State DOTs advise that IRI
conditions are more difficult to preserve
in urbanized areas than in nonurbanized areas. In consideration of this
and because speeds are typically slower
in urbanized areas, FHWA is proposing
different thresholds for Fair and Poor
IRI for large urbanized areas. In
particular, FHWA proposes that the
criteria to classify Poor condition be
increased to an IRI of 220 in urbanized
areas with a population over 1 million.
The proposed IRI threshold of 170 is
commonly used by State DOTs in nonurbanized areas. The proposed IRI
threshold of 220 for urbanized areas
with a population over 1 million is
based on the upper end of IRI value
distributions derived from the data
submitted by State DOTs.76
Traffic levels were not included in the
computation of pavement conditions
except as implied by location as either
urbanized or non-urbanized areas.
Although traffic is an important
consideration for the design of
pavements, it is not considered a
measure of the existing pavement
condition. For this reason, the proposed
rating system described in paragraphs
(b) through (e) was designed without
weightings or other prioritization
related to anything other than the
physical characteristics of the pavement
structure. The FHWA is seeking
stakeholders’ comment on the IRI
threshold values. Because of safety and
pavement structural implications,
Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting
are the same for all population areas.
The FHWA proposes that condition
ratings would be determined for each
section of mainline highway.
The FHWA proposes in
§ 490.313(b)(4) how missing or invalid
data would be addressed. The FHWA
would determine, on the dates specified
in 490.109(d)(1) and 490.109(d)(2), for
the Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS, respectively, any mainline
mileage that is incomplete due to any of
the following scenarios:
• Sections are missing, resulting in
gaps in the mileage to be reported; or
• sections are reported that do not
contain all the data required in
§ 490.311(c) or contain invalid data.
The FHWA is proposing to address
incomplete mainline mileage by:
• Rating the mainline mileage as
being in Poor condition for the
corresponding metric where the mileage
is considered incomplete due to missing
or invalid sections for any of the four
metrics; or
• rating the mainline mileage as being
in overall Poor condition where the
mileage is considered incomplete due to
onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_
toc.pdf.
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Good.
Fair.
Poor.
Good.
Fair.
Poor.
Good.
Fair.
Poor.
Good.
Fair.
Poor.
Good.
Fair.
Poor.
missing or invalid sections for any of
the three inventory data elements.
The FHWA believes that
completeness of data is essential to
reliable and defensible reporting of
pavement condition. The HPMS data
needed to calculate the proposed
pavement condition measure is, in some
cases, incomplete. In 2012, 12 State
DOTs were missing data from samples
that represented at least 50 percent of
their Interstate System and 3 State DOTs
were not able to provide any samples
with complete data for their portion of
the Interstate System. In aggregate, 27
percent of the full Interstate System lane
mileage was represented by samples
with missing HPMS data in 2012.
Approximately 11 percent of the
Interstate System would be rated in Poor
condition if the proposed approach to
addressing missing data was applied to
the 2012 HPMS data. In contrast, only
approximately 2 percent of the Interstate
System would be rated in Poor
condition if the missing 27 percent of
data were excluded from the estimated
calculation. This does not account for
invalid data. The FHWA believes that it
is critically important to use the entire
network system (Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS) when assessing
pavement conditions. The FHWA
encourages comments on alternative
methods for addressing missing or
invalid data that would provide for an
76 FHWA, Table HM–47 in 2011 Highway
Statistic. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
policyinformation/statistics/2011/hm47.cfm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Rating
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
369
The FHWA proposes in § 490.313(c)
and (d) that an Overall Condition Rating
be determined based on the individual
condition ratings for the metrics as
illustrated in Figure 9.
For an asphalt or jointed concrete
pavement section to be classified in
overall Good condition, all three criteria
would have to be met. If a pavement
section has two or more Poor criteria, it
would be classified as Poor. For
example, a section exceeding the criteria
for IRI but not meeting the criteria for
Cracking_Percent and the criteria for
rutting would be classified in overall
Poor condition because the rutting is a
safety hazard and the cracking indicates
that the section is structurally failing.
Because of the distinct engineering
properties of CRCP, there are only two
criteria for determining the overall
pavement condition, IRI and
Cracking_Percent. For a CRCP section,
both the IRI and Cracking_Percent
criteria would need to be rated Good in
order for a section to be classified in
overall Good condition. Conversely, for
a CRCP section, a condition rating of
Poor means that both the IRI and
Cracking_Percent criteria are rated as
Poor.
As outlined above, the FHWA is
proposing an approach to determining
pavement condition that requires at
least 2 metrics to be exhibiting a Poor
level of condition in order for the
overall condition of a pavement section
to be considered Poor. This approach
recognizes the predominant condition
represented by the metrics as the driver
of the overall pavement condition. An
alternative approach could consider the
lowest rated metric as the indicator
driving the overall condition of the
pavement section, essentially only
requiring 1 metric to be in Poor
condition in order for the pavement
section to be rated Poor overall. The
FHWA elected to use a predominant
approach as this concept is typical of
the approach used by many State DOTs
today to evaluate pavement condition.
In addition, FHWA wanted to propose
a condition assessment method that
minimizes the potential for any single
metric, such as ride quality, to dominate
the condition. Further, FHWA believes
that a predominant approach more
accurately recognizes that pavement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.016</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
accurate assessment of network level
conditions.
370
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
pavement that is only exhibiting Poor
cracking.
In § 490.313(e), FHWA proposes that
the Overall condition for all pavement
types on the non-Interstate NHS be
solely based on IRI, until the collection
cycle ending December 31, 2019.
For the purpose of establishing targets
and reporting of condition, FHWA
proposes in § 490.313(f) that State DOTs
and MPOs report system-level condition
measure computed to the one tenth of
a percent as Good and Poor percentages
of lane-miles of Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS. The Percentages of
lane-miles in Good (or Poor) condition
is calculated from the total of the
lengths of the sections in Good (or Poor)
condition, the number of mainline lanes
in each section, and the total length of
all sections. Bridges would be excluded
by excluding any samples that have a
Structure Type of 1 prior to computing
all pavement condition measures. State
DOTs and MPOs would do separate
calculations for the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS measures. These
measures would be used for establishing
targets and reporting the condition of
pavements in the biennial performance
report.
world.77 The FHWA proposes a
minimum condition level that would
minimize impacts to this System: State
DOTs maintain no more than 5.0
percent of their pavements on the
Interstate System in Poor condition.78 In
selecting this level, the FHWA
evaluated the costs and impacts to State
DOTs and highway users as well as the
estimated ability for State DOTs to
comply.
Poor, as defined in this proposal,
represents a level of condition that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Discussion of § 490.315 Establishment
of Minimum Level for Condition of
Pavements on the Interstate System
Selection of Minimum Condition Levels
for the Interstate System
The FHWA is required to establish
minimum levels for the condition of
pavement on the Interstate System for
carrying out 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). (23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii)) The Interstate
System, which includes approximately
48,000 miles of access-controlled
highways, is considered one of the most
important infrastructure assets in the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
77 FHWA Highway Statistics 2011, Table VM–1,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/
statistics/2011/vm1.cfm
78 The FHWA did consider the establishment of
different minimum condition thresholds for
different geographic regions and felt that separate
thresholds for these areas were not necessary.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.017</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
condition is impacted by multiple
failure criteria. For example, a pavement
that is exhibiting both Poor cracking and
Poor rutting is more indicative of a
structural problem as compared to a
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
would adversely impact system
performance and the ability to
effectively manage network level
conditions to meet user needs. There are
several costs and other impacts
associated with the existence of Poor
condition pavements, including
increased repair costs, increased VOCs,
costs associated with work zones, and
impacts to the environment, local
communities and businesses.
Considering these impacts, FHWA
would like to minimize the existence of
Poor condition pavements on the
Interstate System but also allow States
flexibility to manage their pavements
system-wide. The FHWA believes that it
is impractical to set an expectation to
remove all Poor condition pavements
from the Interstate System as it could
result in ineffective pavement
management practices by forcing State
DOTs to chase small percentages of Poor
pavements at the risk of ignoring efforts
to preserve pavements in Good and Fair
conditions. Understanding this
challenge, FHWA believes that a
minimum condition level of 5.0 percent
(approximately 2,400 miles nationally)
would minimize the costs impacts
associated with Poor condition
pavements on the Interstate System, and
would allow State DOTs to effectively
manage the overall performance of the
pavement network through the delivery
of a mix of treatments to address all
pavement condition levels. This would
optimize investment returns.
The FHWA also considered current
target establishment practices used by
State DOTs and actual pavement
conditions existing on the Interstate
System. The FHWA reviewed a sample
of pavement condition target values in
use by a number of State DOTs 79 in
their planning processes and targets
documented in recent research
studies.80 The FHWA found only a
limited number of cases where a State
DOT has established a target specifically
addressing pavements on its portion of
the Interstate System at Poor condition
levels. In the majority of these cases the
target was established at or below 5.0
percent. The FHWA’s proposal is
consistent with policies set by State
DOTs that have established targets
79 Washington State DOT Gray Notebook https://
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/
SI_pavement.htm Kansas DOT. KDOT Long Range
Transportation Plan, Section 2.2 https://
www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LRTP2008/
pdf/KS_LRTPFinal.Chapter_2.pdf Texas DOT.
TxDOT Statewide Long Range Transportation
Plan—2035 Final Report, Section 2.6 https://
ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/
report/slrtp_final_ch2.pdf
80 Pavement Score Synthesis, TXDOT Study,
January, 2009, NCHRP Report 522, and NCHRP
Report 551
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
associated with the level of Poor
pavements on the Interstate System.
The FHWA also evaluated pavement
conditions State DOTs submitted to the
HPMS for the Interstate System in 2012.
Although the HPMS data submitted in
2012 was not complete and was not
reported following the same data
collection and process standards
included in this proposal, FHWA
believes that it provides a general
understanding of the extent to which
the proposed threshold could be met
when implemented. Based on the 2012
submitted data, FHWA estimates that
approximately 1.7 percent of the
Interstate System was in Poor condition
and that approximately 87 percent of
State DOTs would meet a 5.0 percent
threshold on allowable Poor
pavements.81 It is difficult to accurately
assess the impacts of the proposed 5.0
percent minimum condition level on
State DOT investment programming for
Interstate System pavements because
the full baseline of conditions using the
proposed pavement measures does not
exist today for every State. The
estimates discussed above were based
on a sample of the full data from States
that had provided a full baseline
condition data. For this reason, FHWA
is committed to reassessing the
minimum Interstate System pavement
condition level in the future after a
sufficient level of data is reported to
establish a baseline and trends of
pavement conditions on the entire
Interstate System. The FHWA expects to
reassess the minimum Interstate
pavement condition level after the
completion of the first full performance
period to determine if additional system
improvements can be achieved through
adjustments to the required minimum
condition level. The FHWA will
conduct a rulemaking with an
opportunity for public comment if it is
determined through the assessment that
the minimum level should be adjusted.
The FHWA further evaluated the 2012
HPMS data to examine the possibility of
geographical differences in percent lanemiles of the Interstate System in Poor
pavement condition as described in 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(B). The FHWA
evaluated lane-mile distribution of the
Interstate System pavement conditions
among different traffic volumes,
climatic conditions, and terrain types.
Consequently, the data suggested that
81 Estimate based on HPMS data provided by 31
State DOTs and excludes Interstate System mileage
within these States that is represented by samples
with missing data. These State DOTs were able to
submit complete data (needed to calculate the
proposed pavement condition measure) for samples
that represented at least 80 percent of their
Interstate System lane-miles.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
371
there is no evidence to conclude that
there are significant differences in
percent lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Poor pavement condition
among the Interstate System pavement
sections in these various areas.
However, FHWA seeks comments on
the need to establish different
thresholds for geographic regions.
A white paper included in the docket
includes additional information on
FHWA’s rationale for the proposed
minimum condition threshold.
Recognizing the limitations associated
with an analytical approach to
developing the threshold, FHWA is
seeking comment on:
• The proposed minimum level,
including suggestions for alternative
approaches to implementing the
minimum condition requirements of 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1);
• potential impacts resulting from the
existence of Poor condition Interstate
System pavements;
• the appropriate threshold level to
establish a minimum condition for the
Interstate pavement system nationally
and within each State;
• the need to establish different
thresholds for different geographic
regions;
• the need to reassess and potentially
adjust, through rulemaking, the
minimum condition threshold after the
completion of the first full performance
period;
• whether FHWA should, in the final
rule, establish a minimum condition
threshold that would become more
stringent over time, to replace in the
future the proposed initial 5 percent
level, in order to reflect the
improvements made to the system over
time; and
• the lowest minimum condition
level that could be maintained for
Interstate System pavements in the
future.
Discussion of § 490.317 Penalties for
Not Maintaining Condition
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f), § 490.317
describes the method FHWA will use to
assess if a State DOT has maintained the
minimum condition level for pavements
on the Interstate System. The FHWA is
proposing to make this determination
after the first full year of data collection
and each year thereafter. Considering
that this rule is scheduled to be effective
in 2015, the first determination would
be made in 2017 (after a full year of data
collection in 2016) and then annually
thereafter. The FHWA intends to make
this determination in a manner that can
be replicated by State DOTs and others
interested in assessing State DOT
compliance with § 490.315(a) by
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
372
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
extracting the data needed from the
HPMS to make the determination on a
specific date each year. The FHWA is
proposing to extract data from the
HPMS on June 15th of each year to
provide sufficient time for State DOTs to
report pavement conditions for the prior
year to the HPMS. This timetable would
also enable any requirements to obligate
or transfer funds to be in place by the
next fiscal year.
If FHWA determines that the
condition of the Interstate System meets
the requirement specified in
§ 490.317(d), then no further action is
required by the State DOT for the next
fiscal year. If FHWA determines that a
State DOT is out of compliance with 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1), then the State DOT
would be subject to the requirements
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A)(i) and
(ii).
The FHWA proposes in § 490.317(e)
to notify all State DOTs annually of
their compliance status with the
minimum condition requirements prior
to October 1 of the year the
determination would be made.
Section 490.317(f) outlines the actions
that would occur if FHWA determines
that a State DOT is out of compliance
with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). This proposed
section incorporates the requirements
found in 23 U.S.C. 119(f). Under this
proposal, States determined to be out of
compliance would be required to: (1)
Obligate certain NHPP funds for the
purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as
in effect on the day before enactment of
MAP–21) and increased by an amount
each year after Fiscal Year (FY) 2013,
and (2) transfer certain apportioned
Surface Transportation Program for the
purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as
in effect on the day before enactment of
MAP–21). The day before enactment of
MAP–21, 23 U.S.C. 119 contained the
requirements for the Interstate
Maintenance Program. Pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(B), the requirement
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A)
remains in effect until the Interstate
System pavement condition exceeds the
minimum condition level established by
this NPRM. The FHWA is proposing to
implement this restoration requirement
by making annual determinations of
compliance. The FHWA is proposing in
§ 490.317(d) that it would make the
determination based on the data
submitted to the HPMS each year by
assessing compliance with § 490.315(a)
for the most recent 2 years. A proposed
application of this NHPP minimum
condition penalty is provided in the
docket.
The following example (illustrated in
Table 6) indicates how this provision
would be carried out. Assuming that
this rule is effective in 2015, a State
DOT submits data collected on the
Interstate System in calendar year 2016
to the HPMS by April 15, 2017, and data
collected on the Interstate System in
calendar year 2017 to the HPMS by
April 15, 2018. The FHWA would
review the submitted data for
completeness and would work with the
State DOT to address any missing data.
The FHWA would extract data from the
HPMS on June 15, 2017, to determine
State DOT compliance with § 490.315(a)
in 2016 and would notify the State DOT
before October 1 of the determination.
Similarly in 2018, FHWA would extract
data from the HPMS, check compliance
with the minimum level for condition of
pavements, and notify the State DOT
following the same schedule as
described for 2017. If FHWA
determined in both 2017 and 2018 that
the State DOT did not comply with
§ 490.315(a), then beginning October 1,
2018, the State DOT would need to: (1)
Obligate, from the amount apportioned
to the State for the NHPP, an amount
that is not less than the Interstate
Maintenance apportionment for the FY
2009, plus 2 percent per year
compounded annually (for the 5
additional FYs after 2013); and (2)
transfer certain apportioned Surface
Transportation Program funds equal to
10 percent of Interstate Maintenance
apportionment for the FY 2009. These
funds would need to be used to improve
Interstate pavement conditions (as
provided under the pre-MAP–21
Interstate Maintenance Program). In
2019 and each year thereafter, FHWA
would assess the State DOT’s
compliance with § 490.315(a). The State
DOT would be subject to the obligation
requirements specified in 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) if in any year it
is determined that the State DOT was
out of compliance with § 490.315(a) for
the most recent 2 years.
TABLE 6—DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE BASED ON HPMS REPORTING
HPMS reporting
date
CY 2016 ...........................
April 15, 2017 .....
CY 2017 ...........................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Data collection year
Data to be used
for compliance
determination
Date of
determination
and notification
April 15, 2018 .....
CY 2018 and each year
thereafter noted as ‘‘CY
20##’’ the columns to
the right.
April 15, 20XX+1
Data extracted from
HPMS on June 15,
2017, for calendar year
2015 and 2016 Interstate System pavement
conditions.
Data extracted from
HPMS on June 15,
2018, for calendar year
2017 and data that was
extracted on June 15,
2017, for calendar year
2016.
Data extracted from
HPMS on June 15,
20XX+1 for calendar
year 20XX, and data
that was extracted on
June 15, 20XX for calendar year 20XX–1.
Obligation
requirement
effective date
(if not meeting
minimum level
requirement)
Obligation requirement
Prior to October
1, 2017.
Prior to October
1, 2018.
October 1, 2018
At least [(FY09IM *) ×
(1.02)2019¥2013] ** +
[0.10 × (FY09IM *)] ***
Prior to October
1, 20XX+1.
October 1,
20XX+1.
At least [(FY09IM *) ×
(1.02)(20XX∂1)¥2013] ** +
[0.10 × (FY09IM *)] ***
* FY 09IM denotes the amount of funds apportioned to a State for FY 2009 under the Interstate Maintenance program.
** Amount of NHPP to be obligated to addressing Interstate System pavement conditions.
*** Amount of STP to be transferred to the NHPP to address Interstate System pavement conditions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
373
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Discussion of § 490.319 Other
Requirements
To implement the Interstate System
pavement minimum condition level
requirement and the issuance of any
penalties, required under 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1), FHWA proposes in
§ 490.319(a) that each State DOT reports
the required pavement condition
metrics and data elements outlined in
§§ 490.311 and 490.309(b)(4),
respectively, to the HPMS no later than
April 15 of each year. The FHWA
recognizes that State DOTs need
sufficient time after data collection to
process data, conduct data quality
management activities, analyze data,
and carry out other required business
processes that are necessary to prepare
data for upload into HPMS. Based on
previous data management experience,
FHWA anticipates that additional time
would be needed after the State DOT
reports to the HPMS to conduct checks
to assure data quality and completeness.
Additionally, sufficient time is needed
for FHWA’s compliance determination
for minimum condition level, for State
DOT notification, and for FHWA to
issue any resulting penalties so that they
are effective by the beginning of the next
fiscal year as required under 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1).
Thus, FHWA proposes that the State
DOTs report to the HPMS the proposed
Interstate System pavement condition
metrics and data elements no later than
April 15 of each year. This would allow
for sufficient time to carry out the
necessary steps to make a timely and
accurate minimum condition
determination. The FHWA recognizes
that the proposed schedule to report
Interstate System data would accelerate
the time needed to report to the HPMS,
which may impact a State DOT’s ability
to effectively process data and ensure
data quality. Understanding this
potential impact, FHWA is seeking
comment from State DOTs on the
proposed schedule to implement the 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1) minimum condition
requirements.
Provided that this proposed rule
becomes effective in 2015, the
determination of compliance with the
minimum condition requirements
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) would be
carried out by FHWA for the first time
in 2018, based on information in the
previous 2 years. The 2017 assessment
will review 2016 minimum condition
compliance and the 2018 assessment
will review 2017 minimum condition
compliance. Following this
implementation schedule, any transfer
and obligation requirements under 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1) resulting from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
minimum condition compliance
determination would not be in effect
until FY 2019, or by October 1, 2018.
Thus, the proposed requirement to
submit Interstate System data by April
15 would not be in effect until 2017.
This would allow time for State DOTs
to prepare for this proposed accelerated
data reporting requirement.
In § 490.319(b), FHWA proposes to
retain the requirement currently in the
HPMS Field Manual that data for the
non-Interstate NHS pavement condition
be reported to HPMS not later than June
15 of each year.
In § 490.319(c), FHWA proposes Data
Quality Management program
requirements to implement 23 U.S.C.
150(c)(3)(A)(iv) for pavement condition
data. Data quality management
programs are a standard practice in both
private industry and the public sector
wherever large quantities of materials,
products, or data are exchanged. For
purposes of assessing pavement
conditions, there are considerable data
requirements and significant
consequences attached to the outcomes
of the analyses. The FHWA proposes
that each State DOT must have a data
quality management program for the
data required to assess pavement
conditions. This proposal would require
State DOTs to submit their Data Quality
Management Programs to FHWA for
approval. Once approved, State DOTs
would use that program to collect and
report data. State DOTs would also be
required to have FHWA approve
significant changes prior to
implementation. A significant change
would occur when a State DOT changes
fundamental processes, procedures, or
acceptance criteria. Examples of
significant change include moving from
in-house data collection to contract
collection, changing from manual to
automated data collection, contracting
with an independent assurance firm,
and similar actions. The design of the
data quality management program is left
to discretion of State DOTs, as long as
it includes the following items:
• Data Collection equipment,
calibration, and certification;
• Certification process for persons
performing manual data collection, if
used;
• Data quality control measures
conducted both before data collection
begins and periodically during the data
collection program;
• Data sampling, review, and
checking processes; and
• Error resolution procedures and
data acceptance criteria.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Section-by-Section Discussion for
Subpart D: National Performance
Management Measures for Assessing
Bridge Condition
Discussion of § 490.401
Purpose
In § 490.401, FHWA proposes to
specify that bridge condition
performance measures are applicable to
all NHS bridges covered under the
NHPP. In addition, this section
emphasizes that the data used for the
performance measures would need to
include all bridges on the NHS in the
State regardless of ownership,
maintenance responsibility, or
functional classification.
Discussion of § 490.403
Applicability
In § 490.403, FHWA proposes to
specify that the bridge performance
measures are applicable to all NHS
bridges including bridges on ramps
connecting to the NHS as defined by 23
U.S.C. 103 and NHS bridges that cross
a State border regardless of ownership
or maintenance responsibility. The
FHWA also proposes that State DOTs
coordinate with all relevant bridge
owners, such as Federal agencies that
own NHS bridges and other State DOTs
that share NHS bridges that cross State
borders, in order to meet the proposed
requirements of subpart A. The FHWA
recognizes that this differs from certain
established requirements of the NBIS,
such as the NBI data submittal process
under which States are not responsible
for Federal- or tribal-owned bridges.
Similar to the proposed requirement in
subpart A that requires coordination
between State DOTs and MPOs, it is
appropriate that State DOTs coordinate
with all relevant NHS bridge owners for
the proposed bridge condition
performance measures and targets in
order to ensure consistency.
Discussion of § 490.405
Definitions
In § 490.405, FHWA proposes to use
the definition of ‘‘bridge’’ found in the
NBIS (23 CFR 650.305) for this subpart.
The FHWA recognizes that States may
have differing definitions for ‘‘bridge.’’
These discrepancies would cause
problems in analyzing collected bridge
data at the national level, and measuring
progress toward the national goal of
‘‘maintaining the highway infrastructure
asset system in a state of good repair.’’
The use of an established definition
would continue to provide FHWA
consistent and standardized data to be
analyzed for the evaluation of State and
national progress in achieving a state of
good repair.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
374
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The FHWA also proposes to include
a definition for ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’
to identify the population of NHS
bridges for determining a State’s
percentage of deck area of bridges
classified as ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’
and implement the penalty for any State
DOT that does not maintain the
minimum condition level established by
23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). ‘‘Structurally
Deficient’’ is a programmatic term that
was used to administer the Highway
Bridge Program. This Program was
known as the Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program and was eliminated by MAP–
21. It was one of three statuses assigned
to a highway bridge based on an
evaluation of NBI data for the purposes
of determining Highway Bridge Program
eligibility. The proposed definition
would be the same programmatic
definition of ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’
that was used under the Highway Bridge
Program. It would provide a continued
focus of improving a specific population
of bridges through the penalty and
minimum condition level provisions
established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Discussion of § 490.407 National
Performance Management Measures for
Assessing Bridge Condition
In § 490.407, FHWA proposes the two
performance measures to carry out the
NHPP for State DOTs to use to assess
bridge condition on the NHS. The
proposed measures are: (1) Percentage of
NHS bridges classified as in Good
condition; and (2) Percentage NHS
bridges classified as in Poor condition.
These performance measures would be
used to demonstrate how investments of
Federal-aid funds are utilized toward
achieving performance targets for all
NHS bridges, including bridges on
ramps connecting to the NHS. The NHS
is defined in 23 U.S.C. 103.
Discussion of § 490.409 Calculation of
National Performance Management
Measures for Assessing Bridge
Condition
In § 490.409(a), FHWA proposes the
method that would be used to calculate
the bridge measures proposed in
§ 490.407 and outlines how FHWA,
State DOTs, and MPOs would use the
bridge measures.
In § 490.409(b), FHWA proposes the
source of data and the method to be
used in assigning classification for the
condition of bridges on the NHS,
including bridges on ramps connecting
to the NHS. The Good, Fair, and Poor
classification of bridges on the NHS
utilizes data elements from the NBI
database. State DOTs measure and
classify a number of standard features
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
for bridges in their jurisdiction and then
report them to FHWA on an annual
basis. Based on their NBI data, State
DOTs would be required to classify all
bridges within a State into one of the
three classifications: Good, Fair, or Poor.
These classifications and their
development are consistent with the
conclusions and recommendations of a
2011 FHWA study on the use of
performance management approaches
titled, ‘‘Improving FHWA’s Ability to
Assess Highway Infrastructure
Health.’’ 82 As noted in this study, there
are two basic methods FHWA could use
as a basis for developing a measure to
assess bridge condition. The first is a
weighted average method that consists
of calculating a measure of structural
adequacy based on a weighted average
of the deck, superstructure, and substructure condition ratings of a bridge.
The second is the minimum condition
rating method which calculates a
measure of structural adequacy based on
the lowest condition rating of deck,
superstructure, and sub-structure of a
bridge.
This section also proposes that the
condition classification of Good, Fair, or
Poor, be based on a bridge’s condition
ratings for the following NBI Items: 58—
Deck, 59—Superstructure, 60—
Substructure, and 62—Culverts. Various
methods for determining the bridge
condition based on these NBI items
have been studied by FHWA as well as
suggested by States, including: Each
item contributing equally to a final
average; some items contributing more
than others to achieve a weighted
average; and the minimum rated item
controlling (minimum condition rating
method). In the case of culverts, there is
only one item (Item 62—Culvert) to rate,
since culverts do not have NBI Items 58,
59, and 60.
The data within FHWA’s NBI
database, which includes bridge
condition and geometric information, is
utilized to determine overall bridge
condition. Data in the NBI database is
provided to FHWA by State DOTs and
Federal agencies as required by 23 CFR
650.315. State DOTs are required to
submit NBI data annually in accordance
with 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C.
144(h)(2)(D)(ii).
Phases of the previously identified
2011 FHWA study, ‘‘Improving FHWA’s
Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure
Health,’’ evaluated five different
methods (four different weighted
average methods and one minimum
82 ’’Improving FHWA’s Ability to Assess Highway
Infrastructure Health,’’ (https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/46000/
46100/46182/Improving_FHWA_s_ability_to_
assess_highway_infrastructure_health_Pilot_Study_
Rpt.pdf
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
condition rating method) to assign
bridge condition based on Good, Fair, or
Poor ratings. For this study, the NBI
database was selected as the logical data
source because of the consistency of its
representation of over 40 years of
collected data, and because it is used by
nearly every State DOT as the current
basis for their bridge decisionmaking.
The study discussed and evaluated five
different methods (four different
weighted average methods and one
minimum condition rating method). The
study concluded that for the Interstate
System—
• Percentages of bridges classified as
Good, Fair, or Poor were consistent for
all methods with little variation;
• minimum condition rating method
resulted in the highest percentage of
bridges in Poor condition;
• percentages of bridges classified as
Good, Fair, or Poor based on the four
weighted average methods are not
sensitive to the weights; and
• bridge deck conditions alone are
not typically the driving factor in the
Good, Fair, or Poor calculations.
The FHWA further assessed the
different methods and observed that the
magnitude in differences between
condition ratings for individual NBI
items was somewhat nullified when a
final average or weighted average
method was employed. This observation
was also noted in the 2011 study. The
masking or obscuring of possible poor
bridge conditions is a major concern
with the final average or weighted
average methods. Although these
methods could be further refined, the
development, subjectivity, and
complexity of such methods makes
them less desirable than the simple
minimum condition rating method,
especially since analyses indicate that a
refined weighted method would result
in the same general classification as the
minimum condition rating method.
Therefore, FHWA proposes that for each
applicable bridge, the performance
measures for determining condition be
based on the minimum value for the
following NBI Items: 58—Deck, 59—
Superstructure, 60—Substructure, and
62—Culverts. The FHWA further
proposes to weight this condition by the
respective deck area of each bridge and
express condition totals as a percentage
of the total deck area of bridges in a
State. The FHWA recognizes that this
proposed approach to determining
bridge condition is different from the
approach to determining pavement
condition, which is based on a
cumulative assessment.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
375
classification when any of the NBI items
are 4 or less. These classification ratings
are then used to determine the
performance measures identified in
§ 490.407.
In § 490.409(c), FHWA proposes how
to calculate the performance measures
for assessing bridge condition identified
in § 490.407. Using NBI data, the ratio
of the total deck area of bridges in a
condition classification to the total deck
area of applicable bridges is calculated.
The deck area of a bridge is proposed to
be the product of NBI Items 49—
Structure Length, and 52—Deck Width.
In the case of a roadway on fill carried
across a pipe(s) or culvert in which
headwalls do not affect the flow of
traffic, NBI Item 32—Approach
Roadway Width is utilized instead of
Item 52—Deck Width, to calculate the
deck area. The FHWA proposes that this
ratio would be calculated by first
summing the total deck area for each of
the three classification conditions
(Good, Fair, and Poor) for all applicable
bridges. Next, the total deck area for all
of the applicable bridges is calculated.
Finally, the ratio is determined by
dividing the total deck area of bridges
for a classification condition by the total
deck area for the applicable bridges. The
result would be multiplied by 100 to get
the final percentages for the
performance measures (the percent of
bridges in a particular classification).
The equation is as follows:
EP05JA15.019</GPH>
classification when all of the NBI items
are rated as 7 or above; § 490.409(a)(2)
identifies Fair classification when any
of the NBI items are rated as 5 or 6; and
§ 490.409(a)(3) assigns a Poor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.018</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
The following flow diagram, Figure
11, provides in visual format the
classification ratings identified in
§ 490.409(b)(1) through (3). They are as
follows: § 490.409(b)(1) assigns a Good
376
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
In § 490.409(d), FHWA proposes that
these measures be used to establish
targets and report targets and condition.
In § 490.409(e), FHWA notes that all
of the NBI Items (e.g., NBI Item 49—
Structure Length, NBI Item 52—Deck
Width) listed in this section are
included in the ‘‘Recording and Coding
Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,’’
which is incorporated by reference in
§ 490.111.
Discussion of § 490.411 Establishment
of Minimum Level for Condition for
Bridges
In § 490.411(a) through (c), FHWA
incorporates the minimum condition
level for bridges on the NHS established
by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). The minimum
condition level is for State DOTs to
maintain bridges so that the percentage
of the deck area of bridges on the NHS
classified as Structurally Deficient does
not exceed 10 percent. This minimum is
applicable to bridges on the NHS, to
bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS
within a State, and to bridges on the
NHS that cross a State border.
The FHWA also proposes the source
of data and the method to be used in
assigning a classification of Structurally
Deficient to a bridge. The NBI is the
definitive source for national bridge
information and has been used for many
years to classify bridges as Structurally
Deficient, determine eligibility for the
Highway Bridge Program, and apportion
Federal-aid funds. It is for these reasons
the NBI is proposed to be the source of
data for classifying a bridge as
Structurally Deficient.
This section also proposes that the
classification of Structurally Deficient
be based on a bridge’s condition ratings
for the following NBI Items: 58—Deck,
59—Superstructure, 60—Substructure,
62—Culverts, and a bridge’s appraisal
ratings for NBI Items 67—Structural
Evaluation, and 71—Waterway
Adequacy. The proposed method for
classification would be the same
method used under the Highway Bridge
Program. This classification
methodology is found in the former
Federal-aid Policy Guide NonRegulatory Supplement, NS 23 CFR,
Part 650 D, dated September 30, 1992,
Transmittal 5, paragraph 9.a. (https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/
0650dsup.cfm). This method would
provide a continued focus of improving
a specific population of bridges through
the minimum condition level provisions
established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
In order to effectively implement
FHWA’s determination of State DOT
minimum condition level and
assessment of penalty in a timely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
manner, FHWA proposes in
§ 490.411(d) to make minimum
condition level determinations for NHS
bridges on an annual basis. These
determinations would be based on data
cleared in the NBI as of June 15 of each
year. Under the NBIS, State DOTs are
allowed up to 90 days after the date of
inspection to enter Structure Inventory
and Appraisal data into their inventory
for State DOT bridges. For all other
bridges, they are allowed up to 180
days. This time is needed for data
processing, data quality management,
data analysis, and other required
business processes necessary to report
quality data. Based on previous
experiences with data management,
FHWA anticipates State DOTs will need
90 days after submitting their inventory
to the NBI to conduct checks to ensure
data quality and completeness.
Additionally, sufficient time is needed
for FHWA’s minimum condition level
determination, for State DOT
notification, and for FHWA to issue any
resulting penalties so that they are
effective by the beginning of the next
fiscal year. After FHWA makes its
compliance determination, it would
notify all State DOTs of its
determination prior to October 1 of the
year in which the determination was
made.
Thus, FHWA proposes in § 490.411(e)
that the State DOTs submit their most
current NBI data on highway bridges to
FHWA no later than March 15 of each
year. The FHWA recognizes that this is
change from the practice of submitting
NBI data every April 1; however, this
change would allow for sufficient time
to make a timely and accurate minimum
condition determination.
The FHWA estimates that less than 1
percent of all bridges on the NHS are on
Federal or tribal lands. The FHWA
encourages State DOTs to consult and
coordinate with all relevant entities
(e.g., Federal Land Management
Agencies, tribal governments) so that
NBI data for NHS bridges on Federal or
tribal lands within a State’s boundaries
can be provided and considered when
FHWA determines whether a State DOT
has complied with the minimum
condition requirements. Understanding
this potential impact, FHWA is seeking
comment from State DOTs on the
proposal to implement the 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2) minimum condition
requirements.
The determination of compliance
with the minimum condition
requirements specified in 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2) would be carried out by FHWA
for fiscal year 2017 and annually
thereafter. This timing is based on an
assessment of minimum condition
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compliance NBI data submitted in 2014,
2015, and 2016. Following this
implementation schedule, any penalties
resulting from the minimum condition
compliance determination would not be
in effect until FY 2017 or by October 1,
2016.
In § 490.411(f), FHWA notes that all of
the NBI Items (e.g., NBI Item 49—
Structure Length, NBI Item 52—Deck
Width) listed in this section are
included in the ‘‘Recording and Coding
Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges’’,
which is incorporated by reference in
490.111.
Discussion of § 490.413 Penalties for
Not Maintaining Bridge Condition
In § 490.413, FHWA incorporates into
the proposed regulation the penalty for
any State DOT that does not maintain
the minimum condition level
established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). The
proposed section generally describes the
minimum condition requirement and
the consequences when a State fails to
comply with those requirements.
In order to assess State DOT
compliance with the minimum
condition, for the 3-year period
preceding the date of the determination,
FHWA would evaluate annually
whether more than 10.0 percent of the
total deck area of NHS bridges in the
State have been classified as structurally
deficient. If more than 10 percent of the
total deck area of NHS bridges in the
State are classified as structurally
deficient for the 3-year period preceding
the date of determination, then the State
would need to comply with the
proposed 490.413, which incorporates
the requirements found in 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2).
Under this proposal, States that do
not meet the minimum condition
requirements would be required to
obligate a set aside amount equal to 50
percent of the funds apportioned to the
State for fiscal year 2009 to carry out the
Highway Bridge Program, 23 U.S.C. 144,
(as in effect on the day before enactment
of MAP–21) from the amounts
apportioned to a State for a fiscal year
under section 104(b)(1) (the NHPP) only
for eligible NHS bridge projects. The
day before enactment of MAP–21, 23
U.S.C. 144 contained the requirements
for the Highway Bridge Program.
The FHWA is proposing to require an
obligation of a set-aside of certain NHPP
funds during the fiscal year following
the determination. While 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2) only references set-aside,
FHWA is proposing that set aside funds
be obligated in order to implement the
set aside requirement consistent with
congressional treatment to address
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Interstate Pavement Condition, which
requires, in part, an obligation of certain
NHPP funds if the State does not meet
the minimum pavement condition
requirements. The FHWA also proposes
that the bridge minimum condition
penalty would take effect during the
fiscal year following the FHWA’s
determination.
A set aside is derived from a funding
category and results in a portion of that
funding being segregated and dedicated
for a specific purpose (the set aside
implementing this provision would be
segregated from NHPP funds and
dedicated to addressing NHS bridge
conditions). Dedication to address
bridge condition requires timely
obligation. An obligation is considered
a contractual commitment, which
evidences the commitment of funds for
the specific purpose. Pursuant to
authority under 23 U.S.C. 315 and after
taking into account the heading of 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(A) indicating that this
provision is a ‘‘penalty,’’ FHWA
believes it would be appropriate to
require both a set aside and obligation
of NHPP funds. Implementation of the
requirement in this manner would cause
the States not to lose funds but, States
would be required to timely obligate the
set aside funds to address NHS bridge
condition. Thus the States subject to
this requirement would lose some
flexibility with NHPP funds when the
funds are obligated to address the bridge
deficiencies. A requirement to obligate,
in addition to set aside, NHPP funds
would result in funding dedicated to
improving NHS bridges. In addition,
FHWA believes it is appropriate to
specify the timing as to when the
provision would take effect; otherwise
the provision would have little
meaning.
Both of these requirements would be
consistent with the minimum Interstate
pavement condition penalty in 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A), which requires an
obligation of certain funds within a
specific time period. To require
different outcomes with respect to
funding for pavement minimum
condition and bridge minimum
condition, when the purpose of both
provisions is essentially the same (to
require funding to be directed to
improve condition), would seem to
place a priority on pavement condition
over bridge condition with no rationale
to support the disparate treatment. This
consistency in application of the
penalty provisions is also important as
pavement and bridge condition are both
part of the NHPP program. The FHWA
does not believe that prioritizing
pavement condition over bridge
condition is consistent with the national
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
goal in 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(2) of
maintaining all infrastructure assets in a
state of good repair.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(B), the
requirement specified in 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2)(A) remains in effect until less
than 10.0 percent of the total deck area
of the States’ NHS bridges is located on
bridges that have been classified as
structurally deficient. The FHWA is
proposing to implement this restoration
requirement by making annual
determinations of compliance.
As proposed in § 490.413(b), the
determination of compliance with the
minimum condition requirements
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) would be
carried out by FHWA in 2016 and
annually thereafter. This timing is based
on an assessment of minimum condition
compliance with NBI data submitted in
2014, 2015, and 2016. Following this
implementation schedule, any penalties
resulting from the minimum condition
compliance determination would not be
in effect until FY 2017, or after October
1, 2016. State DOTs have been and
currently are submitting the necessary
NBI data to FHWA. As such, FHWA will
have the data to make an annual
determination of compliance beginning
in 2016.83 A proposed application of
this NHPP minimum condition penalty
is provided in the docket along with an
example of its application.
VII. 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 address
noted in the above ADDRESSES section.
Comments received after the comment
closing date will be filed in the docket
and will be considered to the extent
practicable. A final rule may be
published at any time after close of the
comment period.
Please note that the proposed
regulatory text that is presented below
builds on, but is separate from, the
regulatory text proposed in the FHWA’s
first Performance Measure NPRM
published in the Federal Register. The
regulatory text proposed in that first
NPRM is included in the docket.
Comments on that NPRM should be
submitted in accordance with the
instructions contained in that NPRM
(docket number USDOT–2013–0020).
When the three Performance
Management rulemakings are
completed, the combined regulatory text
83 Questions and Answer 2 on FHWA’s MAP–21
Web site (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/
qabridges.cfm), posted on 9/25/2012, provides
information on the 3-year period that will be used
for the first determination of compliance.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
377
from each of the three rules will
represent the entirety of 23 CFR part
490.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this
proposed rule constitutes an
economically significant regulatory
action within the meaning of Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866 and within the
meaning of the DOT regulatory policies
and procedures. This action complies
with E.O.s 12866 and 13563. This action
is considered ‘‘economically
significant’’ because this rulemaking
will result in the 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 has filed into the
docket a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(regulatory analysis or RIA) in support
of the NPRM on National Performance
Measures for Assessing Pavement and
Bridge Conditions. The regulatory
analysis estimates 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 E.O.
12866 and E.O. 13563, but does not
currently attempt to directly quantify
the changes from the improved
decisionmaking. The economic impacts
are measured on an incremental basis,
relative to current pavement and bridge
condition reporting practices.
This section of the NPRM identifies
the estimated costs and benefits
resulting from the proposed 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 (docket number FHWA–2013–
0053).
The cornerstone of MAP–21’s
transformation of the highway program
is the transition to a performance-based
program. In accordance with the law,
State DOTs would invest resources in
projects to achieve performance targets
that make progress toward national
goals areas. The national performance
goal area established for infrastructure
condition is to maintain the highway
infrastructure asset system in a state of
good repair. In order to carry out this
mandate, MAP–21 requires FHWA to
promulgate a rule to establish pavement
and bridge condition performance
measures and standards. As required by
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
378
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
MAP–21, this NPRM identifies the
following pavement and bridge
performance measures for which State
DOTs and MPOs must collect and report
data, establish targets for performance,
and make progress toward achievement
of targets:
1. Percentage of lane-miles of the
Interstate System in Good condition;
2. Percentage of lane-miles of the
Interstate System in Poor condition;
3. Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Good condition;
4. Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Poor condition;
5. Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Good condition; and
6. Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Poor condition.
Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule
To estimate costs for the proposed
rule, FHWA assessed the level of effort,
expressed in labor hours and the labor
categories, and capital 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 7 displays the total cost of the
proposed rule for the 10-year study
period (2015–2024). Total costs are
estimated to be $196.4 million
undiscounted, $149.1 million
discounted at 7 percent, and $173.2
million discounted at 3 percent. The
costs in the table assume a portion of
MPOs, approximately half of the
estimated 420 MPOs, would establish
their own targets and a portion would
adopt State DOT targets. It is assumed
that State DOTs and MPOs serving
TMAs 84 would use staff to establish
performance targets and MPOs not
serving a TMA would agree to plan and
program projects so that they contribute
toward the accomplishment of the
relevant State DOT targets and would
therefore not incur any incremental
costs. There are currently an estimated
210 MPOs serving TMAs. The FHWA
made this assumption because larger
MPOs may have more resources
available to develop performance
targets. The FHWA believes that this is
a conservative estimate as larger MPOs
may elect not to establish their own
targets for any variety of reasons,
including resource availability.
TABLE 7—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE
10-yr Total cost
Cost components
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Undiscounted
Section 490.105–109—General Information, Target Establishment, Reporting on
Progress, and Making Significant Progress ...........................................................
Establish and Update Performance Targets ......................................................
Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving Performance Targets ..............
Reporting on Performance Targets Progress ....................................................
Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Interstate IRI, Rutting, and Faulting ..........
Data Collection: IRI measurement in both directions ........................................
Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting ............................................
Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting ...........................................
Data processing costs: Additional IRI data ........................................................
Data processing costs: Additional rutting data ...................................................
Data processing costs: Additional faulting data .................................................
Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Interstate Cracking ....................................
Fully Automated State DOTs: Additional Data Quality Control Costs ...............
Semi-Automated State DOTs: Additional Data Processing & Quality Control
Costs ...............................................................................................................
Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting: Training costs to adopt automated methods ...............................................................................................
Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting: Data quality control costs ........
Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Non-Interstate NHS IRI, Rutting, and
Faulting ...................................................................................................................
Data Collection costs: Increase IRI Measurement to Cover 100 percent of
non-interstate NHS miles ................................................................................
Data processing costs: Additional rutting and faulting data collected ...............
Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting ............................................
Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting ...........................................
Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Non-Interstate NHS Cracking ...................
Additional data quality control costs for new data collection .............................
Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Capital Costs .............................................
Profiler ................................................................................................................
Faulting Software ................................................................................................
Cracking Video Equipment and Software Purchase ..........................................
Section 490.313—Calculation of performance management measures ...................
Reprogramming of software to allow Performance Calculations .......................
FHWA’s Management of Data Submissions ......................................................
Filtering out Bridge Pavement from Pavement Data .........................................
Section 490.319—Other Requirements .....................................................................
Develop a Quality Management Program ..........................................................
Run New Quality Management Program ...........................................................
Improve Quality Management Program .............................................................
Section 490.407—Calculation of bridge performance measures ..............................
Update Software to generate good/fair/poor condition ......................................
FHWA’s Management of Data Submissions ......................................................
84 A TMA is an urbanized area having a
population of over 200,000 or otherwise requested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
7%
$93,283,261
39,198,632
1,122,098
52,962,531
30,712,622
24,283,997
489,800
979,600
1,653,075
1,836,750
1,469,400
15,225,866
1,224,500
$64,861,869
28,462,495
703,058
35,696,316
23,081,249
18,249,988
368,096
736,192
1,242,324
1,380,360
1,104,288
11,872,243
920,240
$79,297,035
33,931,374
913,432
44,452,229
26,984,444
21,336,184
430,344
860,687
1,452,410
1,613,789
1,291,031
13,587,510
1,075,859
4,006,853
3,011,243
3,520,464
1,729,138
8,265,375
1,729,138
6,211,622
1,729,138
7,262,049
5,616,835
4,050,700
4,855,720
395,566
636,740
2,546,960
2,037,568
4,040,850
4,040,850
16,600,000
9,100,000
1,000,000
6,500,000
8,242,259
6,405,509
244,900
1,591,850
15,962,695
44,194
3,061,250
12,857,251
6,759,061
6,405,509
353,552
285,271
459,199
1,836,795
1,469,436
2,914,145
2,914,145
15,891,841
8,391,841
1,000,000
6,500,000
7,785,869
6,405,509
184,048
1,196,312
12,007,317
44,194
2,300,601
9,662,522
6,671,211
6,405,509
265,703
341,965
550,458
2,201,832
1,761,466
3,493,291
3,493,291
16,254,041
8,754,041
1,000,000
6,500,000
8,019,297
6,405,509
215,172
1,398,617
14,030,362
44,194
2,689,648
11,296,520
6,716,144
6,405,509
310,635
by the Governor and the MPO and officially
designated by FHWA or FTA. 23 U.S.C. 134(k).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3%
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
379
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued
10-yr Total cost
Cost components
Undiscounted
Total Cost of Proposed Rule ..............................................................................
7%
196,443,449
3%
149,136,445
173,237,846
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Break-Even Analysis
Currently, State DOTs differ from
State to State in the way they measure
the condition of their pavement. We do
not believe their current methods are
inadequate, but the methods are
inconsistent and these differences
hinder accurate analysis of
infrastructure conditions at the national
level. The proposed rulemaking would
establish uniform condition measures
for the purpose of carrying out the
NHPP to assess condition of pavements
on the NHS (excluding the Interstate
System), condition of pavements on the
Interstate System, and condition of
bridges on the NHS. In addition, the
rule would establish processes that: (1)
State DOTs and MPOs use to report
measures and establish performance
targets, and (2) FHWA uses to assess
progress that State DOTs have made
toward achieving targets.
Upon implementation, FHWA expects
that the proposed rule would result in
certain benefits. Specifically, the
proposed rule would allow for more
informed decisionmaking on bridge and
pavement condition-related project,
program, and policy choices. The
proposed rule also would yield greater
accountability because the MAP–21mandated reporting would increase
bridges that would have to be avoided
in order for the benefits of the rule to
justify the costs.
Table 8 presents the results from the
pavement break-even analysis. The
results represent the savings in VOC to
automobile and truck drivers from
pavement conditions that are improved
from Poor to Good. The analysis shows
that the proposed rule would need to
result in the net improvement of
approximately 435 miles of pavement
(i.e., to Good condition) per year, or
4,350 miles over 10 years, that would
otherwise not have been improved
without the proposed rule. The annual
break-even point represents
approximately 1.9 percent of the NHS
miles currently estimated to be in poor
condition. Based on recent trends in
improving road condition, FHWA
believes improving 435 miles of
pavement per year or 4,350 miles over
10 years as a result of this rule is
achievable. Using a related benchmark
as a point of reference, between 2000
and 2010, the percentage of VMT on
NHS pavements with ‘‘Good’’ ride
quality increased from 48 percent to 60
percent. On average, this is equivalent
to a 1.2 percent increase in improved
VMT per year.85
visibility and transparency. In addition,
the proposed rule would help focus the
Federal-aid highway program on
achieving balanced performance
outcomes.
These benefits resulting from the
proposed rule (i.e., more informed
decisionmaking, greater accountability,
and greater focus on making progress
toward the national goal for
infrastructure condition) would lead to
improved pavement and bridge
conditions. The benefits resulting from
performance measurement, while real
and substantial, are difficult to
monetize. For this proposed rule,
FHWA quantified these benefits of the
proposed rule by performing break-even
analyses as described in Office of
Management and Budget Circular A–4.
A break-even analysis calculates the
threshold a specific variable must
achieve in order for benefits to equal
costs, holding every other variable in
the analysis constant. For both
pavements and bridges, FHWA focused
its break-even analyses on VOCs savings
because users typically garner the
greatest concentration of benefits from
transportation projects. The DOT
estimated the number of road miles of
deficient pavement that would have to
be improved and the number of posted
TABLE 8—BREAK-EVEN IMPROVEMENT OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS (IMPROVED FROM POOR)
Annual poor VMT
(total VMT * 4.9%)
Percent of poor
VMT needing
improvement
Current NHS
miles estimated to
be in poor
condition
Approximate
number of
poor NHS
miles needing
improvement
from poor
b
Annual improved
from poor VMT
needed
c=a÷b
d
e=c*d
a
Maintenance ..........................................
Fuel ........................................................
Tires .......................................................
7,398,564,204
1,946,081,966
175,596,118,543
79,778,275,896
79,778,275,896
79,778,275,896
9.24%
2.43%
219.25%
22,827
22,827
22,827
2,109
555
50,049
Total ................................................
1,527,395,633
79,778,275,896
1.91%
22,827
435
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
Table 9 presents the results from the
bridge break-even analysis which
calculates the number of year-long
bridge postings that would need to be
reduced as a result of the proposed rule
in order for the benefits of the bridge
condition requirements to justify the
costs. The FHWA estimated the average
cost per year of a bridge posting
(column E in Table 9). With the
undiscounted cost of the bridge
requirements and this average cost of a
bridge posting, the analysis estimates
the number of year-long bridge postings
that need to be avoided in order to make
85 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration. 2013 Status of the
Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions & Performance Report to Congress.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/pdfs/
littlebook.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
380
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the benefits of the proposed rule justify
the cost. The break-even analysis
estimates that 2 year-long bridge
postings need to be avoided over 10
years in order for benefits to justify
costs. As a basis for comparison, NBI
data indicate that currently there are
approximately 85 NHS bridges posted
for trucks. Over the 10 year period of
2003–2012 the number of NHS bridges
posted for truck declined from 145 to
85. Trends in the United States
demonstrated by bridge owners provide
evidence that posted bridges receive
priority consideration in work
schedules. With the increased
performance requirements of this rule, it
is reasonable to assume that at a
minimum, a reduction in the posted
load limit of one bridge annually
nationwide would be achieved to
provide the needed benefit to justify the
costs of complying with this rule.
TABLE 9—BREAK-EVEN BRIDGE DETOURS
Average cost per year of each
bridge posting
Equivalent
number of
year-long
posts that
need to be
avoided
Annual number of
year-long posts that
need to be avoided
d=b×c
e = d * 1,940 ADT * 365.25
f=a÷e
g = f ÷ 10 years
$33.82
$23,964,028
2
0.2
Undiscounted 10 year cost of
proposed bridge rule
Average
truck user
cost per
VMT
Average
distance
per
detour
(miles)
Average
cost of
detour
per trucks
a
b
c
$53,400,692 ...................................
$1.69
20
* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 action on small entities
and has determined that the action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule affects State
governments and MPOs. State DOTs are
not included in the definition of small
entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. 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 TMAs, which
generally have 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.
Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act does not apply, and I hereby certify
that the proposed action would not have
a significant economic 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 E.O. 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)
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction.
The regulations implementing E.O.
12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and
activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from OMB for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. The FHWA
has analyzed this proposed rule under
the PRA and has determined that this
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposal contains collection of
information requirements for the
purposes of the PRA.
This proposed rule provides
definitions and outlines processes for
bridge and pavement performance
measures and reporting. Some burdens
in this proposed rule would be realized
in other reporting areas as described
below. The PRA activities that are
already covered by existing OMB
Clearances have reference numbers for
those clearances as follows: HPMS
information collection, OMB No. 2125–
0028 with an expiration of June 30,
2015; and National Bridge Inventory,
OMB No. 2125–0501 with an expiration
date of December 31, 2014. Any increase
in PRA burdens caused by MAP–21 in
these areas will be addressed in PRA
approval requests associated with those
collections.
This rulemaking requires the
submittal of biennial performance
reports. The FHWA has analyzed this
proposed rule under the PRA and has
determined the following:
Respondents: Approximately 262
applicants consisting of States and
MPOs.
Frequency: Biennially.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: Approximately 416 hours to
complete and submit the report.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: Approximately 54,496 hours
annually.
The FHWA invites interested persons
to submit comments on any aspect of
the information collection. Comments
submitted on the information collection
proposed in this NPRM will be
summarized or included, or both, in the
request for OMB approval of this
information collection.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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), which covers the
promulgation of regulations.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
The FHWA has analyzed this
proposed rule under E.O. 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 E.O.
12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This action meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminates
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under E.O. 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 E.O.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 12898 (Environmental
Justice)
The E.O. 12898 requires that each
Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission
by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
proposed rule does not raise any
environmental justice issues.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action
under E.O. 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
E.O. 13211 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.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number 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 regulation identification
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 recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
18, 2014, under authority delegated in 49
CFR 1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Acting Administrator, FHWA Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing,
FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part
490, as proposed to be added at 79 FR
13846, March 11, 2014, as follows:
PART 490—NATIONAL
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
1. The authority citation for part 490
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i), and
150; 49 CFR 1.85.
■
2. Revise subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A—General Information
Sec.
490.101 Definitions
490.103 Data Requirements
490.105 Establishment of Performance
Targets
490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets
490.109 Assessing Significant Progress
toward Achieving the Performance
Targets for the National Highway
Performance Program
490.111 Incorporation by reference
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 490.101
381
Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified, the
following definitions apply to the entire
part 490:
Full Extent means continuous
collection and evaluation of pavement
condition data over the entire length of
the roadway.
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.
Mainline highways means the through
travel lanes of any highway. Mainline
highways specifically exclude ramps,
shoulders, turn lanes, crossovers, rest
areas, and other pavement surfaces that
are not part of the roadway normally
travelled by through traffic.
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.
National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is an
FHWA database containing bridge
information and inspection data for all
highway bridges on public roads, on
and off Federal-aid highways, including
tribally owned and federally owned
bridges, that are subject to the National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).
Non-Urbanized Area means any
geographic area that is not an
‘‘urbanized area’’ under either 23 U.S.C.
101(a)(34).
Performance period means a
determined time period during which
condition/performance is measured and
evaluated to: (1) Assess condition/
performance with respect to baseline
condition/performance; and (2) track
progress toward the achievement of the
targets that represent the intended
condition/performance level at the
midpoint and at the end of that time
period. The term ‘‘performance period’’
applies to all proposed measures in this
Part, except the measures proposed for
the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) in Subpart B. Each
performance period covers a 4-year
duration beginning on a specified date
(provided in § 490.105).
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.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
382
§ 490.103
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Data requirements.
(a) In general. Unless otherwise noted
below, the data requirements in this
section applies to the measures
identified in Subparts B–C. Additional
data requirements for specific
performance management measures are
identified in 23 CFRs—
(1) 490.309 for the condition of
pavements on the Interstate System;
(2) 490.309 for the condition of
pavements on the non-Interstate NHS;
(3) 490.409 for the condition of
bridges on the NHS;
(4) [Reserved].
(b) Urbanized area data. The State
DOTs shall submit urbanized area data,
including boundaries of urbanized
areas, in accordance with the HPMS
Field Manual for the purpose of the
additional targets for urbanized and
non-urbanized areas in § 490.105(e) and
IRI rating determination in
§ 490.313(b)(1). The boundaries of
urbanized areas shall be identified
based on the most recent U.S. Decennial
Census, unless FHWA approves
adjustments to the urbanized area as
provided by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34), and
these adjustments are submitted to
HPMS, available at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
(c) [Reserved].
(d) National Highway System data.
The State DOTs shall document and
submit the extent of the NHS in
accordance with the HPMS Field
Manual.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 490.105
targets.
Establishment of performance
(a) In general. State Departments of
Transportation (State DOTs) shall
establish performance targets for all
measures specified in paragraph (c) of
this section for respective target scope
identified in paragraph (d) with the
requirements specified in paragraph (e)
of this section, and the Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) shall
establish performance targets for all
measures specified in paragraph (c) for
respective target scope identified in
paragraph (d) of this section with the
requirements specified in paragraph (f)
of this section.
(b) Highway Safety Improvement
Program measures. State DOTs and
MPOs shall establish performance
targets for the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) measures
in accordance with § 490.209.
(c) Applicable measures. State DOTs
and MPOs that include, within their
respective geographic boundaries, any
portion of the applicable transportation
network shall establish performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
targets for the performance measures
identified in 23 CFRs—
(1) 490.307(a)(1) and (2) for the
condition of pavements on the Interstate
System;
(2) 490.307(a)(3) and (4) for the
condition of pavements on the National
Highway System (NHS) (excluding the
Interstate); and
(3) 490.407(c)(1) and (2) for the
condition of bridges on the NHS.
(d) Target scope. Targets established
by the State DOT and MPO shall,
regardless of ownership, represent the
transportation network, including
bridges that cross State borders, that are
applicable to the measures as specified
in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2).
(1) State DOTs and MPOs shall
establish Statewide and metropolitan
planning areawide targets, respectively,
that represent the condition/
performance of the transportation
network that is applicable to the
measure, as specified in 23 CFR—
(i) 490.303 for the condition of
pavements on the Interstate System;
(ii) 490.303 for the condition of
pavements on the non-Interstate NHS;
and
(iii) 490.403 for the condition of
bridges on the NHS.
(2) [Reserved].
(3) For the purpose of target
establishment in this section, reporting
targets and progress evaluation in
§ 490.107 and significant progress
determination in § 490.109, State DOTs
shall declare and describe the NHS
limits and urbanized area boundaries
within the State boundary in the
Baseline Performance Period Report
required by § 490.107(b)(1). Any
changes in NHS limits or urbanized area
boundaries during a performance period
would not be accounted for until the
following performance period.
(e) State DOT target setting. State
DOTs shall establish targets for each of
the performance measures identified in
paragraph (c) of this section for
respective target scope identified in
paragraph (d) of this section as follows:
(1) Schedule. State DOTs shall
establish targets not later than 1 year of
the effective date of this rule and for
each performance period thereafter, in a
manner that allows for the time needed
to meet the requirements specified in
this section and so that the final targets
are submitted to FHWA by the due date
provided in § 490.107(b).
(2) Coordination. State DOTs shall
coordinate with relevant MPOs on the
selection of targets in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure
consistency, to the maximum extent
practicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(3) Additional targets for urbanized
and non-urbanized areas. In addition to
statewide targets, described in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, State
DOTs may, as appropriate, for each
statewide target establish additional
targets for portions of the State.
(i) A State DOT shall declare and
describe in the Baseline Performance
Period Report required by
§ 490.107(b)(1) the boundaries used to
establish each additional target. Any
changes in boundaries during a
performance period would not be
accounted for until the following
performance period.
(ii) State DOTs may select any number
and combination of urbanized area
boundaries and may also select a nonurbanized area boundary for the
establishment of additional targets.
(iii) The boundaries used by the State
DOT for additional targets shall be
contained within the geographic
boundary of the State and available to
the FHWA.
(iv) State DOTs shall evaluate
separately the progress of each
additional target and report that
progress as required under
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B).
(4) Time horizon for targets. State
DOTs shall establish targets for a
performance period as follows:
(i) The performance period will begin
on:
(A) January 1 of the year in which the
Baseline Performance Period Report is
due to FHWA and will extend for a
duration of 4 years for the measures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section; and
(B) [Reserved].
(ii) The midpoint of a performance
period will occur 2 years after the
beginning of a performance period
described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this
section.
(iii) State DOTs shall establish 2-year
targets that reflect the anticipated
condition/performance level at the
midpoint of each performance period.
(iv) State DOTs shall establish 4-year
targets that reflect the anticipated
condition/performance level at the end
of each performance period.
(5) Reporting. State DOTs shall report
2-year targets, 4-year targets, the basis
for each established target, progress
made toward the achievement of targets,
and other requirements to FHWA in
accordance with § 490.107, and the
State DOTs shall provide relevant
MPO(s) targets to FHWA, upon request,
each time the relevant MPOs establish
or adjust MPO targets, as described in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(6) Target adjustment. State DOTs
may adjust an established 4-year target
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
in the Mid Performance Period Progress
Report, as described in § 490.107(b)(2).
(7) Phase-in of new requirements for
Interstate System pavement condition
measures. The following requirements
apply only to the first performance
period and the measures in
§ 490.307(a)(1) and (2):
(i) State DOTs shall establish their 4year targets, required under paragraph
(e)(4)(iv) of this section, and report these
targets in their Baseline Performance
Period Report, required under
§ 490.107(b)(1);
(ii) State DOTs shall not report 2-year
targets, described in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)
of this section, and baseline condition/
performance in their Baseline
Performance Period Report; and
(iii) State DOTs shall update the
baseline condition/performance in their
Baseline Performance Period Report,
with the 2-year condition/performance
in their Mid Performance Period
Progress Report, described in
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). State DOTs may
also adjust their 4-year targets, as
appropriate.
(f) MPO target setting. The MPOs shall
establish targets for each of the
performance measures identified in
paragraph (c) of this section for
respective target scope identified in
paragraph (d) of this section as follows:
(1) Schedule. The MPOs shall
establish targets no later than 180 days
after the respective State DOT(s)
establishes their targets, described in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(i) The MPOs shall establish 4-year
targets, described in paragraph (e)(4)(iv)
of this section, for all applicable
measures, described in paragraphs (c)–
(d) of this section.
(ii) Reserved.
(2) Coordination. The MPOs shall
coordinate with relevant State DOT(s)
on the selection of targets in accordance
with 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) to
ensure consistency, to the maximum
extent practicable.
(3) Time horizon for targets. The
MPOs shall establish 4-year targets that
reflect the anticipated condition/
performance level at the end of each
performance period, described in
paragraph (e)(4) of this section. The
MPOs are not required to establish 2year targets.
(4) Target establishment options. The
MPOs shall establish targets by either:
(i) Agreeing to plan and program
projects so that they contribute toward
the accomplishment of the relevant
State DOT targets; or
(ii) Committing to quantifiable targets
for their metropolitan planning area.
(5) [Reserved].
(6) [Reserved].
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
(7) MPO response to State DOT target
adjustment. If the State DOT adjusts a
4-year target in the State DOT’s Mid
Performance Period Progress Report and
if, for this respective target, the MPO
established a target by supporting the
State DOT target as allowed under
paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, then
the MPO shall, within 180 days, report
to the State DOT whether they will
either:
(i) Agree to plan a program of projects
so that they contribute to the adjusted
State DOT target; or
(ii) Commit to a new quantifiable
target for its metropolitan planning area.
(8) Target adjustment.— If the MPO
establishes its target by committing to a
quantifiable target, described in
paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this section, then
the MPOs may adjust its target(s) in a
manner that is agreed upon and
documented in the metropolitan
planning agreement in accordance with
part 450 of this chapter.
(9) Reporting.—The MPOs shall report
targets and progress toward the
achievement of their targets as specified
in § 490.107(c). After the MPOs
establish or adjust their targets, the
relevant State DOT(s) must be able to
provide these targets to FHWA, upon
request.
§ 490.107
targets.
Reporting on performance
(a) In general. All State DOTs and
MPOs shall report the information
specified in this section for the targets
required in § 490.105.
(1) All State DOTs and MPOs shall
report in accordance with the schedule
and content requirements under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
respectively.
(2) For the measures identified in
§ 490.207(a), all State DOTs and MPO
shall report on performance in
accordance with § 490.213.
(3) State DOTs shall report using an
electronic template provided by FHWA.
(b) State Biennial Performance
Report. State DOTs shall report to
FHWA baseline condition/performance
at the beginning of a performance period
and progress achievement at both the
midpoint and end of a performance
period. State DOTs shall report at an
ongoing 2-year frequency as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this
section.
(1) Baseline Performance Period
Report— (i) Schedule. State DOTs shall
submit a Baseline Performance Period
Report to FHWA by October 1 of the
first year in a performance period. State
DOTs shall submit their first Baseline
Performance Period Report to FHWA by
October 1, 2016, and subsequent
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
383
Baseline Performance Period Reports to
FHWA by October 1 every 4 years
thereafter.
(ii) Content. The State DOT shall
report the following information in each
Baseline Performance Period Report:
(A) Targets. Two-year and 4-year
targets for the performance period, as
required in § 490.105(e), and a
discussion, to the maximum extent
practicable, of the basis for each
established target;
(B) Baseline condition/performance,
Baseline condition/performance derived
from the latest data collected through
the begin date of the performance period
specified in § 490.105(e)(4) for each
target, required under paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
(C) Relationship with other
performance expectations. A
discussion, to the maximum extent
practicable, on how the established
targets in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section support expectations
documented in longer range plans, such
as the State asset management plan
required by 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and the
long-range statewide transportation plan
provided in part 450 of this chapter;
(D) Urbanized area boundaries and
population data for targets. For the
purpose of determining target scope in
§ 490.105(d), determining IRI rating in
§ 490.313(b)(1), and establishing
additional targets for urbanized and
non-urbanized areas in § 490.105(e)(3),
State DOTs shall document the
boundary extent for all applicable
urbanized areas and the latest Decennial
Census population data, based on
information in HPMS;
(E) NHS limits for targets. For the
purpose of determining target scope in
§ 490.105(d), State DOTs shall
document the extent of the NHS, based
on information in the HPMS.
(2) Mid Performance Period Progress
Report—(i) Schedule.—State DOTs shall
submit a Mid Performance Period
Progress Report to FHWA by October 1
of the third year in a performance
period. State DOTs shall submit their
first Mid Performance Period Progress
Report to FHWA by October 1, 2018,
and subsequent Mid Performance Period
Progress Reports to FHWA by October 1
every 4 years thereafter.
(ii) Content. The State DOT shall
report the following information in each
Mid Performance Period Progress
Report:
(A) Two-year condition/performance.
The actual condition/performance
derived from the latest data collected
through the midpoint of the
performance period, specified in
§ 490.105(e)(4), for each State DOT
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
384
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
reported target required in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
(B) Two-year progress in achieving
performance targets. A discussion of the
State DOT’s progress toward achieving
each established 2-year target in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
The State DOT shall compare the actual
2-year condition/performance in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section,
within the boundaries and limits
documented in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(D)
and (E) of this section, with the
respective 2-year target and document
in the discussion any reasons for
differences in the actual and target
values;
(C) Investment strategy discussion. A
discussion on the effectiveness of the
investment strategies developed and
documented in the State asset
management plan for the NHS required
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e);
(D) [Reserved];
(E) Target adjustment discussion.
When applicable, a State DOT may
submit an adjusted 4-year target to
replace an established 4-year target in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. If
the State DOT adjusts its target, it shall
include a discussion on the basis for the
adjustment and how the adjusted target
supports expectations documented in
longer range plans, such as the State
asset management plan and the longrange statewide transportation plan. The
State DOT may only adjust a 4-year
target at the midpoint and by reporting
the change in the Mid Performance
Period Progress Report.
(F) Two-year significant progress
discussion for the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) targets.
State DOTs shall discuss the progress
they have made toward the achievement
of all 2-year targets established for the
NHPP measures in § 490.105(c)(1)
through (3). This discussion should
document a summary of prior
accomplishments and planned activities
that will be conducted during the
remainder of the Performance Period to
make significant progress toward that
achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP
measures;
(G) Extenuating Circumstances
discussion on NHPP 2-year targets.
When applicable, a State DOT may
include a discussion on the extenuating
circumstance(s), described in
§ 490.109(e)(5), beyond the State DOT’s
control that prevented the State DOT
from making 2-year significant progress
toward achieving NHPP target(s) in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) of this section;
and
(H) NHPP Target Achievement
Discussion. If FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
progress toward the achievement of
NHPP targets in two consecutive
biennial FHWA determinations, then
the State DOT shall include a
description of the actions they will
undertake to better achieve NHPP
targets as required under § 490.109(f). If
FHWA determines under § 490.109(e)
that the State DOT has achieved
significant progress, then the State DOT
does not need to include this
description.
(3) Full Performance Period Progress
Report—(i) Schedule.—State DOTs shall
submit a progress report on the full
performance period to FHWA by
October 1 of the first year following the
reference performance period. State
DOTs shall submit their first Full
Performance Period Progress Report to
FHWA by October 1, 2020, and
subsequent Full Performance Period
Progress Reports to FHWA by October 1
every 4 years thereafter.
(ii) Content. The State DOT shall
report the following information for
each Full Performance Period Progress
Report:
(A) Four-year condition/performance.
The actual condition/performance
derived from the latest data collected
through the end of the Performance
Period, specified in § 490.105(e)(4), for
each State DOT reported target required
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
(B) Four-year progress in achieving
performance targets. A discussion of
State DOT’s progress made toward
achieving each established 4-year target
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (E) of this
section, when applicable. The State
DOT shall compare the actual 4-year
condition/performance in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, within the
boundaries and limits documented in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E) of this
section, with the respective 4-year target
and document in the discussion any
reasons for differences in the actual and
target values;
(C) Investment strategy discussion. A
discussion on the effectiveness of the
investment strategies developed and
documented in the State asset
management plan for the NHS required
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e);
(D) [Reserved];
(E) Four-year significant progress
evaluation for NHPP targets.—State
DOTs shall discuss the progress they
have made toward the achievement of
all 4-year targets established for the
NHPP measures in § 490.105(c)(1)
through (3). This discussion shall
include a summary of accomplishments
achieved during the Performance Period
to demonstrate whether the State DOT
has made significant progress toward
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP
measures.
(F) Extenuating circumstances
discussion on NHPP targets. When
applicable, a State DOT may include
discussion on the extenuating
circumstance(s), described in
§ 490.109(e)(5), beyond the State DOT’s
control that prevented the State DOT
from making a 4-year significant
progress toward achieving NHPP targets,
described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E) of
this section; and
(G) NHPP target achievement
discussion. If FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement of
NHPP targets in two consecutive
biennial FHWA determinations, then
the State DOT shall include a
description of the actions they will
undertake to better achieve NHPP
targets as required under § 490.109(f). If
FHWA determines in § 490.109(e) that
the State DOT has achieved significant
progress, then the State DOT does not
need to include this description.
(c) MPO report. MPOs shall establish
targets in accordance with § 490.105 and
report targets and progress toward the
achievement of their targets in a manner
that is consistent with the following:
(1) The MPOs shall report their
established 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 part 450 of this
chapter.
(2) The MPOs shall report baseline
condition/performance and progress
toward the achievement of their targets
in the system performance report in the
metropolitan transportation plan in
accordance with part 450 of this
chapter.
§ 490.109 Assessing significant progress
toward achieving the performance targets
for the National Highway Performance
Program.
(a) In general. The FHWA will assess
each of the State DOT targets separately
for the NHPP measures specified in
§ 490.105(c)(1) through (3) to determine
the significant progress made toward the
achievement of those targets.
(b) Frequency. The FHWA will
determine whether a State DOT has or
has not made significant progress
toward the achievement of NHPP targets
as described in paragraph (e) of this
section at the midpoint and the end of
each performance period.
(c) Schedule. The FHWA will
determine significant progress toward
the achievement of a State DOT’s NHPP
targets after the State DOT submits the
Mid Performance Period Progress Report
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for progress toward the achievement of
2-year targets, and again after the State
DOT submits the Full Performance
Period Progress Report for progress
toward the achievement of 4-year
targets. The FHWA will notify State
DOTs of the outcome of the
determination of the State DOT’s ability
to make significant progress toward the
achievement of its NHPP targets.
(d) Source of data/information. The
FHWA will use the following sources of
information to assess NHPP condition
and performance progress:
(1) Data contained within the HPMS
on June 15 of the year in which the
significant progress determination is
made that represents conditions from
the prior year for targets established for
Interstate System pavement condition
measures, as specified in
§ 490.105(c)(1);
(2) Data contained within the HPMS
on August 15 of the year in which the
significant progress determination is
made that represents conditions from
the prior year for targets established for
non-Interstate NHS pavement condition
measures, as specified in
§ 490.105(c)(2);
(3) The most recently available data
contained within the NBI as of June 15
of the year in which the significant
progress determination is made for
targets established for NHS bridge
condition measures, as specified in
§ 490.105(c)(3); and
(4) The urbanized area boundary and
NHS limit data in the HPMS as
documented in the Baseline Period
Performance Report specified in
§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E).
(e) Significant progress determination
for individual NHPP targets—(1) In
general. The FHWA will biennially
assess whether the State DOT has
achieved or made significant progress
towards each target established by the
State DOT for the NHPP measures
described in § 490.105(c)(1) and (3). The
FHWA will assess the significant
progress of each statewide target
separately using the condition/
performance data/information sources
described in paragraph (d) of this
section. The FHWA will not assess the
progress achieved for any additional
targets a State DOT may establish under
§ 490.105(e)(3).
(2) Significant Progress toward
individual NHPP Targets. The FHWA
will determine that a State DOT has
made significant progress toward the
achievement of each 2-year or 4-year
NHPP target if either:
(i) The actual condition/performance
level is better than the baseline
condition/performance reported in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report; or
(ii) The actual condition/performance
level is equal to or better than the
established target.
(3) Phase-in of new requirements for
Interstate System pavement condition
measures. The following requirements
shall only apply to the first performance
period and the Interstate System
pavement condition targets, described
in § 490.105(e)(7):
(i) At the midpoint of the first
performance period, FHWA will not
make a determination of significant
progress toward the achievement of 2year targets for Interstate System
pavement condition measures.
(ii) The FHWA will classify the
assessment of progress toward the
achievement of targets in paragraph
(e)(3)(i) of this section as ‘‘progress not
determined’’ so that they will be
excluded from the requirement under
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(4) Insufficient data and/or
information. If a State DOT does not
provide sufficient data and/or
information, required under paragraph
(d) of this section and § 490.107,
necessary for FHWA to make significant
progress determination for each NHPP
target, FHWA will determine that the
State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement of the
applicable NHPP target(s).
(5) Extenuating circumstances. The
FHWA will consider extenuating
circumstances documented by the State
DOT in the assessment of progress
toward the achievement of NHPP targets
in the relevant State Biennial
Performance Report, provided in
§ 490.107.
(i) The FHWA will classify the
assessment of progress toward the
achievement of an individual 2-year or
4-year target as ‘‘progress not
determined’’ if the State DOT has
provided an explanation of the
extenuating circumstances beyond the
control of the State DOT that prevented
it from making significant progress
toward the achievement of a 2-year or 4year target and the State DOT has
quantified the impacts on the condition/
performance that resulted from the
circumstances, which include:
(A) Natural or man-made disasters
that caused delay in NHPP project
delivery, extenuating delay in data
collection, and/or damage/loss of data
system;
(B) Sudden discontinuation of Federal
Government furnished data due to
natural and man-made disasters or lack
of funding; and/or
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
385
(C) New law and/or regulation
directing State DOTs to change metric
and/or measure calculation.
(ii) If the State DOT’s explanation,
described in paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this
section, is accepted by FHWA, FHWA
will classify the progress towards
achieving the relevant NHPP target(s) as
‘‘progress not determined,’’ and those
targets will be excluded from the
requirement in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section.
(f) Performance achievement. If
FHWA determines that a State DOT has
not made significant progress towards
the achievement of NHPP targets in two
consecutive FHWA determinations,
then the State DOT shall include in its
next Biennial Performance Report a
description of the actions the State DOT
will undertake to achieve the targets
related to the measure in which
significant progress was not achieved as
follows:
(1) If significant progress is not made
for either target established for the
Interstate System pavement condition
measures, § 490.307(a)(1) and (2), then
the State DOT shall document the
actions they will take to improve
Interstate Pavement conditions;
(2) If significant progress is not made
for either target established for the NonInterstate System pavement condition
measures, § 490.307(a)(3) and (4), then
the State DOT shall document the
actions they will take to improve NonInterstate Pavement conditions.
(3) If significant progress is not made
for either target established for the NHS
bridge condition measures,
§ 490.407(c)(1) and (2), then the State
DOT shall document the actions they
will take to improve NHS bridge
conditions.
(4) [Reserved].
(5) [Reserved].
(6) The State DOT should, within 6
months of the significant progress
determination and in a format that can
be made available to FHWA, document
the information specified in this
paragraph to ensure actions are being
taken to improve progress.
(7) [Reserved].
§ 490.111
Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
FHWA must publish a notice of change
in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for
inspection at the Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Highway
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
386
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Policy Information (202–366–4631) and
is available from the sources listed
below. It is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or
go to https://www.archives.gov/federal_
register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) The Federal Highway
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
www.fhwa.dot.gov.
(1) Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) Field Manual, IBR
approved for subpart A though C.
(2) Recording and Coding Guide for
the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of
the Nation’s Bridges, Report No.
FHWA–PD–96–001, December 1995 and
errata, IBR approved for subpart D.
(c) The American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials, 444
North Capitol Street NW., Suite 249,
Washington, DC 20001, (202) 624–5800,
www.transportation.org.
(1) AASHTO Standard M328–14,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Equipment Specification for Inertial
Profiler, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(2) AASHTO Standard R57–14,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling
Systems, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(3) AASHTO Standard R55–10 (2013),
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in
Asphalt Pavement Surface, 2014, 34th/
2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606–
4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(4) AASHTO Standard PP67–14,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in
Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from
Collected Images Utilizing Automated
Methods, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(5) AASHTO Standard PP68–14,
Standard Specification for Collecting
Images of Pavement Surfaces for
Distress Detection, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(6) AASHTO Standard R48–10 (2003),
Standard Specification for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Determining Rut Depth in
Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(7) AASHTO Standard PP69–14,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Determining Pavement
Deformation Parameters and Cross
Slope from Collected Transverse
Profiles, 2013, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(8) AASHTO Standard PP70–14,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Collection the Transverse
Pavement Profile, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(9) AASHTO Standard R36–13,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Evaluating Faulting of
Concrete Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
(10) AASHTO Standard R43–13,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Roughness of
Pavement, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR
approved for subpart C.
■ 4. Add subpart C to read as follows:
Subpart C—National Performance
Management Measures for the Assessing
Pavement Condition
Sec.
490.301 Purpose.
490.303 Applicability.
490.305 Definitions.
490.307 National Performance Management
Measures for Assessing Pavement
Condition.
490.309 Data requirements.
490.311 Calculation of Pavement Metrics.
490.313 Calculation of Performance
Management Measures.
490.315 Establishment of minimum level
for condition of Pavements.
490.317 Penalties for not maintaining
minimum Interstate System pavement
condition.
490.319 Other requirements.
Subpart C—National Performance
Management Measures for the
Assessing Pavement Condition
§ 490.301
Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to
implement the following statutory
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3) to:
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) Establish measures for States and
MPOs to assess the condition of
pavements on the Interstate System;
(b) Establish measures for States and
MPOs to assess the condition of
pavements on the NHS (excluding the
Interstate);
(c) Establish minimum levels for
pavement condition on the Interstate
System, only for purposes of carrying
out 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1);
(d) Establish data elements that are
necessary to collect and maintain
standardized data to carry out a
performance-based approach; and
(e) Consider regional differences in
establishing the minimum levels for
pavement conditions on the Interstate
System.
§ 490.303
Applicability.
The performance measures in this
subpart are applicable to the mainline
highways on the Interstate System and
on the non-Interstate NHS.
§ 490.305
Definitions.
The following definitions are only
applicable to this subpart, unless
otherwise provided:
Asphalt pavements means pavements
where the top-most surface is
constructed with asphalt materials.
These pavements are coded in the
HPMS as having any one of the
following Surface Types:
Code
Surface_type
2 .......
6 .......
Bituminous.
Asphalt-Concrete (AC) Overlay over
Existing AC Pavement.
AC Overlay over Existing Jointed
Concrete Pavement.
AC (Bituminous Overlay over Existing CRCP).
7 .......
8 .......
Continuously Reinforced Concrete
Pavements (CRCP) means pavements
where the top-most surface is
constructed of reinforced Portland
cement concrete with no joints. These
pavements are coded in the HPMS as
having the following Surface Type:
Code
Surface_type
5 .......
CRCP—Continuously
Concrete Pavement.
Reinforced
Cracking means an unintentional
break in the continuous surface of a
pavement. Cracking percent means the
percentage of pavement surface
exhibiting cracking as follows:
(1) For Asphalt pavements,
Cracking_Percent is the percentage of
the area of the pavement section,
exhibiting visible cracking.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(2) For Jointed Concrete Pavements,
Cracking_Percent is the percentage of
concrete slabs exhibiting cracking;
(3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent is
the percentage of pavement surface with
longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts,
spalling or other visible defects.
Faulting means a vertical
misalignment of pavement joints in
Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.
International Roughness Index (IRI)
means a statistic used to estimate the
amount of roughness in a measured
longitudinal profile. The IRI is
computed from a single longitudinal
profile using a quarter-car simulation, as
described in the report: ‘‘On the
Calculation of IRI from Longitudinal
Road Profile’’ (Sayers, M.W.,
Transportation Research Board 1501,
Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC 1995).
Jointed concrete pavements means
pavements where the top-most surface
is constructed of Portland cement
concrete with joints. It may be
constructed of either reinforced or
unreinforced (plain) concrete. It is
coded in the HPMS as having any one
of the following Surface Types:
Code
Surface_type
3 .......
4 .......
Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement.
Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement.
Unbonded Jointed Concrete Overlay
on PCC Pavement.
Bonded PCC Overlay on PCC Pavement.
Other (includes ‘‘whitetopping’’).
9 .......
10 .....
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
11 .....
Pavement means any hard surfaced
travel lanes of any highway.
Pavement Surface Rating (PSR) means
an observation based system formerly
used to rate pavements. It is not to be
used to measure or rate NHS pavement
conditions.
Punchout means a distress specific to
CRCP described as the area between two
closely spaced transverse cracks and
between a short longitudinal crack and
the edge of the pavement (or a
longitudinal joint) that is breaking up,
spalling, or faulting.
Rutting means longitudinal surface
depressions in the pavement derived
from measurements of a profile
transverse to the path of travel on a
highway lane. It may have associated
transverse displacement.
Sampling as applied to pavements,
means measuring pavement conditions
on a short section of pavement as a
statistical representation for the entire
section. Sampling is not to be used to
measure or rate non-Interstate NHS
pavement conditions after January 1,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
2018. Sampling is not permitted on the
Interstate System.
§ 490.307 National performance
management measures for assessing
pavement condition.
(a) To carry out the NHPP, the
performance measures for States to
assess pavement condition are:
(1) Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition;
(2) Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Poor condition;
(3) Percentage of pavements of the
non-Interstate NHS in Good condition;
and
(4) Percentage of pavements of the
non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition.
(b) State DOTs will collect data using
the methods described in § 490.309 and
will process this data to calculate
individual pavement metrics for each
section of pavement that will be
reported to FHWA as described in
§ 490.311. State DOTs and FHWA will
use the reported pavement metrics to
compute an overall performance of
Good, Fair, or Poor, for each section of
pavement as described in § 490.313.
§ 490.309
Data requirements.
(a) The performance measures
identified in § 490.307 are to be
computed using methods in § 490.313
from the four condition metrics and
three inventory data elements contained
within the HPMS that shall be collected
and reported following the HPMS Field
Manual, which is incorporated by
reference into this subpart (see
§ 490.111). The four condition metrics
include: IRI, rutting, faulting, and
Cracking_Percent. The three data
elements include: Through Lanes,
Surface Type, and Structure Type.
(b) State DOTs shall collect data in
accordance with the following relevant
HPMS requirements to report IRI,
rutting (asphalt pavements), faulting
(jointed concrete pavements), and
Cracking Percent.
(1) For the Interstate System the
following shall apply for all the
pavement condition metrics:
(i) State DOTs shall collect data—
(A) From the full extent of the
mainline highway;
(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one
consistent lane for all data if the
rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
(C) Continuously collected in a
manner that will allow for reporting in
uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528
feet); shorter sections are permitted only
at the beginning of a route, end of a
route, or other locations where a section
length of 0.1 mile is not achievable;
sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in
length;
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
387
(D) In both directions of travel; and
(E) On an annual frequency.
(ii) Estimating conditions from data
samples of the full extent of the
mainline highway is not permitted.
(iii) Pavement condition data shall be
collected separately for each direction of
the Interstate System. Averaging across
directions is not permitted.
(2) For the non-Interstate NHS the
following shall apply:
(i) For the IRI metric, State DOTs shall
collect and report data:
(A) From the full extent of the
mainline highway;
(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one
consistent lane for all data if the
rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
(C) Continuously collected in a
manner that will allow for reporting in
uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528
feet); shorter sections are permitted only
at the beginning of a route, end of a
route, or other locations where a section
length of 0.1 mile is not achievable;
sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in
length;
(D) In one direction of travel; and
(E) On a biennial frequency.
(F) Estimating conditions from data
samples of the full extent of the
mainline will not be permitted.
(ii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting
and faulting metrics, data collected
prior to the data collection cycle ending
December 31, 2019, shall be collected:
(A) Using sampling methods outlined
in the HPMS Field Manual
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111); and
(B) On at least a biennial frequency.
(iii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting
and faulting metrics, data collected
beginning with the data collection cycle
ending December 31, 2019, shall be in
accordance with the following:
(A) On the full extent (no sampling)
of the mainline highway;
(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one
consistent lane for all data if the
rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
(C) Continuously collected in a
manner that will allow for reporting in
uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528
feet); shorter sections are permitted only
at the beginning of a route, end of a
route, or other locations where a section
length of 0.1 mile is not achievable;
sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in
length;
(D) In one direction of travel; and
(E) On at least a biennial frequency.
(F) Estimating conditions from data
samples of the full extent of the
mainline highway will not be permitted.
(3) Data collection methods for each
of the condition metrics shall conform
to the following:
(i) The device to collect data needed
to calculate the IRI metric shall be in
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
388
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
accordance with American Association
of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Standard M328–14,
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Equipment Specification for Inertial
Profiler (incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111).
(ii) The method to collect data needed
to calculate the IRI metric shall be in
accordance with AASHTO Standard
R57–14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling
Systems (incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111).
(iii) The method to collect data
needed to determine the
Cracking_Percent metric for all
pavement types except CRCP shall be
either:
(A) Manual, in accordance with
AASHTO Standard R55–10 (2013),
Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in
Asphalt Pavement Surface (incorporated
by reference, see § 490.111); or
(B) Automated, in accordance with
AASHTO Standards PP67–14, Standard
Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Standard Practice for
Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt
Pavement Surfaces from Collected
Images Utilizing Automated Methods
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111), and PP68–14, Standard
Specification for Collecting Images of
Pavement Surfaces for Distress
Detection (incorporated by reference,
see § 490.111).
(iv) For CRCP the method to collect
the data needed to determine the
Cracking_Percent metric is described in
the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated
by reference, see § 490.111) and
includes longitudinal cracking and/or
punchouts, spalling, or other visible
defects.
(v) For Asphalt Pavements, the
method to collect data needed to
determine the rutting metric shall either
be:
(A) A 5-Point Collection of Rutting
Data method in accordance with
AASHTO Standard R48–10, Standard
Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Standard Practice for
Determining Rut Depth in Pavements
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111); or
(B) An Automated Transverse Profile
Data method in accordance with
AASHTO Standards PP69–14, Standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Standard Practice for
Determining Pavement Deformation
Parameters and Cross Slope from
Collected Transverse Profiles
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111), and PP70–14, Standard
Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Standard Practice for Collection
the Transverse Pavement Profile
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111).
(vi) For Jointed Concrete Pavements,
the method to collect data needed to
determine the faulting metric shall be in
accordance with AASHTO Standard
R36–13, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods
of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Evaluating Faulting of
Concrete Pavements (incorporated by
reference, see § 490.111).
(c) State DOTs shall collect data in
accordance with the following relevant
HPMS requirements to report Through
Lanes, Surface Type, and Structure
Type.
(1) State DOTs shall collect data:
(i) For the full extent of the mainline
highway of the NHS;
(ii) In both directions of travel for the
Interstate System and in one direction of
travel for the non-Interstate NHS; and
(iii) On at least a biennial frequency.
(2) Estimating data elements from
samples of the full extent of the
mainline highway is not permitted,
except as provided in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
§ 490.311
Calculation of pavement metrics.
(a) The condition metrics and data
elements needed to calculate the
pavement performance measures shall
be calculated in accordance with the
HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by
reference, see § 490.111), except as
noted below.
(b) State DOTs shall calculate metrics
in accordance with the following
relevant HPMS requirements.
(1) For all pavements, the IRI metric:
(i) Shall be computed from pavement
profile data in accordance with
AASHTO Standard R43–13, Standard
Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Standard Practice for
Quantifying Roughness of Pavement,
2014, 34th/2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1–
56051–606–4 (incorporated by
reference, see § 490.111);
(ii) Shall be reported for all
pavements as the average value in
inches per mile for each section; and
(iii) Shall not be estimated from a PSR
or other observation-based method.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) For asphalt pavements—
(i) The Cracking Percent metric shall
be computed as the percentage of the
total area containing visible cracks to
the nearest whole percent in each
section; and
(ii) The rutting metric shall be
computed as the average depth of
rutting, in inches to the nearest 0.05
inches, for the section.
(3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent
metric shall be computed as the
percentage of the area of the section to
the nearest whole percent exhibiting
longitudinal cracking, punchouts,
spalling or other visible defects.
Transverse cracking shall not be
considered in the Cracking_Percent
metric.
(4) For jointed concrete pavements—
(i) The Cracking Percent metric shall
be computed as the percentage of slabs
to the nearest whole percent within the
section that exhibit cracking;
(ii) Partial slabs shall contribute to the
section that contains the majority of the
slab length; and
(iii) The faulting metric shall be
computed as the average height, in
inches to the nearest 0.05 inch, of
faulting between pavement slabs for the
section.
(c) State DOTs shall report the four
pavement metrics and three inventory
data elements listed in § 490.309(a) as
calculated following the requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in
accordance with the following relevant
HPMS requirements:
(1) Metrics and inventory data
elements shall be reported to the HPMS
in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile
(528 feet); shorter sections are permitted
only at the beginning of a route, end of
a route, or other locations where a
section length of 0.1 mile is not
achievable; and sections shall not
exceed 0.1 mile in length;
(2) Each section shall have a single
value for each of the relevant condition
metrics and a single value for each of
the inventory data elements.
(3) The time and location reference
shall be reported for each section as
follows:
(i) The State Code, Route ID, Begin
Point, and End Point shall be reported
as specified in the HPMS field manual
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 490.111) for each of the four condition
metrics and three inventory data
elements;
(ii) The Year Record shall be reported
as the four digit year for which the data
represents for each of the four condition
metrics and three inventory data
elements; and
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(iii) The Value Date shall be reported
as the month and year of data collection
for each of the four condition metrics.
(4) Sections for the four condition
metrics and three inventory data
elements shall be reported to the HPMS
for the Interstate System by April 15 of
each year for the data collected during
the previous calendar year.
(5) Sections for the four condition
metrics and three inventory data
elements shall be reported to the HPMS
for the non-Interstate NHS by June 15 of
each year for the data collected during
the previous calendar year.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 490.313 Calculation of performance
management measures.
(a) The pavement measures in
§ 490.307 shall be calculated in
accordance with this section and used
by State DOTs and MPOs to carry out
the pavement condition related
requirements of this part, and by FHWA
to make the significant progress and
minimum condition determinations
specified in §§ 490.109 and 490.317,
respectively.
(b) The performance measure for
pavements shall be calculated based on
the data collected in § 490.309 and
pavement condition metrics computed
in § 490.311. The performance measure
for pavements shall be based on three
condition ratings of Good, Fair, and
Poor calculated for each pavement
section. The ratings are determined as
follows.
(1) IRI rating shall be determined for
all pavement types using the following
criteria:
(i) If an IRI value of a pavement
section in a non-urbanized area or
urbanized area with a population less
than 1 million is—
(A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the
pavement section is Good;
(B) Between 95 and 170, the IRI rating
for the pavement section is Fair; and
(C) Greater than 170, the IRI rating for
the pavement section is Poor.
(ii) If an IRI value of a pavement
section in an urbanized area with a
population of at least 1 million is—
(A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the
pavement section is Good;
(B) Between 95 and 220, the IRI rating
for the pavement section is Fair; and
(C) Greater than 220, the IRI rating for
the pavement section is Poor.
(2) Cracking condition shall be
determined using the following criteria:
(i) For asphalt and jointed concrete
pavement sections—
(A) If the Cracking Percent value of a
section is less than 5 percent, the
cracking rating for the pavement section
is Good;
(B) If the Cracking Percent value of a
section is equal to or greater than 5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
percent and less than or equal to 10
percent the cracking rating for the
pavement section is Fair; and
(C) If the Cracking Percent value of a
section is greater than 10 percent the
cracking rating for the pavement section
is Poor.
(ii) For CRCP sections:
(A) If the Cracking Percent value of a
section is less than 5 percent, the
cracking rating for the pavement section
is Good;
(B) If the Cracking Percent value of a
section is equal to or greater than 5
percent and less than or equal to 10
percent, the cracking rating for the
pavement section is Fair; and
(C) If the Cracking Percent value of a
section is greater than 10 percent, the
cracking rating for the pavement section
is Poor.
(3) Rutting or faulting rating shall be
determined using the following criteria.
(i) For asphalt pavement:
(A) If the rutting value of a section is
less than 0.20 inches, the rutting rating
for the pavement section is Good;
(B) If the rutting value of a section is
equal to or greater than 0.20 inches and
less than or equal to 0.40 inches, the
rutting rating for the pavement section
is Fair; and
(C) If the rutting value of a section in
is greater than 0.40 inches, the rutting
rating for the pavement section is Poor.
(ii) For jointed concrete pavement:
(A) If the faulting value of a section
is less than 0.05 inches, the faulting
rating for the pavement section is Good;
(B) If the faulting value of a section is
equal to or greater than 0.05 inches and
less than or equal to 0.15 inches, the
faulting rating for the pavement section
is Fair; and
(C) If the faulting value of a section is
greater than 0.15 inches, the faulting
rating for the pavement section is Poor.
(4) Missing sections or sections
reported to the HPMS with unresolved,
missing, or invalid data as determined
on the dates specified in § 490.109(d)(1)
and (2), shall be addressed as follows:
(i) Mainline lane-miles that are
missing sections or represented with
sections that are missing data or contain
invalid data as specified in § 490.311(c)
for any of the four condition metrics
will be rated as Poor for each respective
condition metric; and
(ii) Mainline lane-miles that are
missing sections or represented with
sections that are missing data or contain
invalid data as specified in § 490.311(c)
for any of the three inventory data
elements will be rated in overall Poor
condition.
(c) The overall condition for asphalt
and jointed concrete pavement sections
shall be determined based on the ratings
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
389
for IRI, Cracking Percent, rutting and
faulting, as described in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section,
respectively, for each section as follows:
(1) A pavement section shall be rated
an overall condition of Good only if the
section is exhibiting Good ratings for all
three conditions (IRI, Cracking_Percent,
and rutting or faulting);
(2) A pavement section shall be rated
an overall condition of Poor if two or
more of the three conditions are
exhibiting Poor ratings (at least two
ratings of Poor for IRI, Cracking Percent,
and rutting or faulting).
(3) A pavement section shall be rated
an overall condition of Fair if it does not
meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) or
(2) of this section.
(d) The Overall Condition for CRCP
sections shall be determined based on
two ratings of IRI and Cracking_Percent,
as described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
of this section, respectively, for each
section as follows:
(1) A pavement section shall be rated
an overall condition of Good only if the
section is exhibiting Good ratings for
both conditions (IRI and Cracking
Percent);
(2) A pavement section shall be rated
an overall condition of Poor if it exhibits
Poor ratings for both conditions (IRI and
Cracking Percent);
(3) A pavement section shall be rated
an overall condition of Fair if it does not
meet the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) or
(2) of this section.
(e) State DOTs shall not be subject to
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for
Pavements on the non-Interstate NHS
until after the data collection cycle
ending December 31, 2019. During this
transition period, the Overall condition
for all pavement types on the nonInterstate NHS will be based on IRI
rating, as described in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, until the Cracking
Percent, rutting, and faulting data
collection requirements are in effect, as
described in § 490.309(b)(2)(iii).
(f) The pavement condition measures
in § 490.307 shall be computed as
described below. The measures shall be
used for establishing targets in
accordance with § 490.105 and reporting
the conditions of the pavements in the
biennial performance reporting required
in § 490.107 as follows:
(1) Bridges shall be excluded prior to
computing all pavement condition
measures by removing the sections
where the Structure Type is coded as 1.
(2) For § 490.307(a)(1) the measure for
Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Good condition shall be
computed to the one tenth of a percent
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
390
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(4) For § 490.307(a)(3) the measure for
Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Good condition shall
be computed to the one tenth of a
percent as follows:
Total = total number of mainline highway
non-Interstate NHS sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section
g or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section g
or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes
designated for through-traffic
represented by a section g or t.
(5) For § 490.307(a)(4) the measure for
Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Poor condition shall
be computed to the one tenth of a
percent as follows:
where:
Poor = total number of mainline highway
non-Interstate NHS sections where the
overall condition is Poor;
p = a section’s overall condition is
determined Poor per paragraphs (b), (c),
or (d) of this section;
t = a non-Interstate NHS section;
Total = total number of mainline highway
non-Interstate NHS sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section
p or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section p
or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes
designated for through-traffic
represented by a section p or t.
§ 490.315 Establishment of minimum level
for condition of pavements.
(b) The FHWA shall extract data
contained within the HPMS on June 15
that represents conditions from the prior
calendar year for Interstate System
pavement conditions to carry out
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The FHWA shall determine State
DOT compliance with § 490.315(a) after
the first full year of data collection for
the Interstate System following the
effective date of this rule and each year
thereafter.
(d) The FHWA shall determine if a
State DOT is in compliance with 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1) after the second full
year of data collection for the Interstate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
For the purposes of carrying out the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1), the
Percentage of lane-miles of Interstate
System in Poor condition, as computed
per § 490.313(f)(3), shall not exceed 5.0
percent.
§ 490.317 Penalties for not maintaining
minimum Interstate System pavement
condition.
(a) The FHWA shall compute the
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System, excluding sections on bridges,
in Poor Condition, in accordance with
§ 490.313(f)(3), for each State annually.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.022</GPH>
where:
Good = total number of mainline highway
non-Interstate NHS sections where the
overall condition is Good;
g = a section’s overall condition is
determined Good per paragraphs (b), (c),
or (d) of this section;
t = a non-Interstate NHS section;
EP05JA15.021</GPH>
Total = total number of mainline highway
Interstate System sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section
p or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section p
or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes
designated for through-traffic
represented by a section p or t.
EP05JA15.023</GPH>
(3) For § 490.307(a)(2) the measure for
Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Poor condition shall be
computed to the one tenth of a percent
as follows:
EP05JA15.020</GPH>
Total = total number of mainline highway
Interstate System sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section
g or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section g
or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes
designated for through-traffic
represented by a section g or t.
where:
Poor = total number of mainline highway
Interstate System sections where the
overall condition is Poor;
p = a section’s overall condition is
determined Poor per paragraphs (b) or (c)
of this section;
t = an Interstate System section;
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
where:
Good = total number of mainline highway
Interstate System sections where the
overall condition is Good;
g = a section’s overall condition is
determined Good per paragraphs (b) or
(c) of this section;
t = an Interstate System section;
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
System following the effective date of
this rule and each year thereafter based
on the determination made in paragraph
(c) of this section for the most recent 2
years. The FHWA will determine a State
DOT to be in compliance with 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1) if the State DOT is determined
to be in compliance with § 490.315(a) in
either of the most recent 2 years.
(e) The FHWA will notify State DOTs
of their compliance with 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1) prior to October 1 of the year
in which the determination was made.
(f) If FHWA determines through
conduct of paragraph (d) of this section
a State DOT to be out of compliance
with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) then the State
DOT shall, during the following fiscal
year:
(1) Obligate, from the amounts
apportioned to the State DOT under 23
U.S.C. 104(b)(1) (for the NHPP), an
amount that is not less than the amount
of funds apportioned to the State for
Federal fiscal year 2009 under the
Interstate Maintenance program for the
purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as
in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the MAP–21), except that
for each year after Federal fiscal year
2013, the amount required to be
obligated under this clause shall be
increased by 2 percent over the amount
required to be obligated in the previous
fiscal year; and
(2) Transfer, from the amounts
apportioned to the State DOT under 23
U.S.C. 104(b)(2) (for the Surface
Transportation Program) (other than
amounts sub-allocated to metropolitan
areas and other areas of the State under
23 U.S.C. 133(d)) to the apportionment
of the State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1),
an amount equal to 10 percent of the
amount of funds apportioned to the
State for fiscal year 2009 under the
Interstate Maintenance program for the
purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as
in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the MAP–21).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 490.319
Other requirements.
(a) In accordance with the HPMS
Field Manual (incorporated by
reference, see § 490.111), each State
DOT shall report the following to the
HPMS no later than April 15 each year:
(1) The pavement condition metrics
specified in § 490.311 that are necessary
to calculate the Interstate System
condition measures identified in
§§ 490.307(a)(1) and (2) and;
(2) the data elements specified in
§ 490.309(b)(4) for the Interstate System
(b) In accordance with the HPMS
Field Manual (incorporated by
reference, see § 490.111), each State
DOT shall report to the HPMS no later
than June 15 each year the pavement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
condition metrics specified in § 490.311
that are necessary to calculate the nonInterstate NHS condition measures in
§§ 490.307(a)(3) and (4).
(c) Each State DOT shall develop and
utilize a Data Quality Management
Program, approved by FHWA that
addresses the quality of all data
collected, regardless of the method of
acquisition, to report the pavement
condition metrics, discussed in
§ 490.311, and data elements discussed
in § 490.309(b)(4).
(1) In a Data Quality Management
Programs, State DOTs shall include, at
a minimum, methods and processes for:
(i) Data collection equipment
calibration and certification;
(ii) Certification process for persons
performing manual data collection;
(iii) Data quality control measures to
be conducted before data collection
begins and periodically during the data
collection program;
(iv) Data sampling, review and
checking processes; and
(v) Error resolution procedures and
data acceptance criteria.
(2) Not later than 1 year after the
effective date of this regulation, State
DOTs shall submit their Data Quality
Management Program to FHWA for
approval. Once FHWA approves a State
DOT’s Data Quality Management
Program, the State DOT shall use that
Program to collect and report data
required by §§ 490.309 to 490.311. State
DOTs also shall submit any proposed
significant change to the Data Quality
Management Program to FHWA for
approval prior to implementing the
change.
■ 5. Add subpart D to read as follows:
Subpart D—National Performance
Management Measures for Assessing
Bridge Condition
Sec.
490.401 Purpose.
490.403 Applicability.
490.405 Definitions.
490.407 National performance management
measures for assessing bridge condition.
490.409 Calculation of National
performance management measures for
assessing bridge condition.
490.411 Establishment of minimum level
for condition for bridges.
490.413 Penalties for not maintaining
bridge condition.
Subpart D—National Performance
Management Measures for Assessing
Bridge Condition
§ 490.401
Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to
implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(III), which
requires the Secretary of Transportation
to establish performance measures for
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
391
the purpose of carrying out the NHPP
and for State DOTs and MPOs to use in
assessing the condition of bridges on the
NHS.
§ 490.403
Applicability.
The section is only applicable to NHS
bridges including bridges on ramps
connecting to the NHS as defined by 23
U.S.C. 103.
§ 490.405
Definitions.
The following definitions are only
applicable to this subpart, unless
otherwise provided:
Bridge as used in this section, is
defined in 23 CFR 650.305, the National
Bridge Inspection Standards.
Structurally deficient as used in
§§ 490.411 and 490.413 is a
classification given to a bridge which
has significant load carrying elements in
poor or worse condition or the adequacy
of the waterway opening provided by
the bridge is determined to be
insufficient to the point of causing
overtopping with intolerable traffic
interruptions.
§ 490.407 National performance
management measures for assessing
bridge condition.
(a) There are three classifications for
the purpose of assessing bridge
condition. They are:
(1) Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Good condition;
(2) Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Fair condition; and
(3) Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Poor condition.
(b) [Reserved].
(c) To carry out the NHPP, two of the
three classifications are performance
measures for State DOTs to use to assess
bridge condition on the NHS. They are:
(1) Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Good condition; and
(2) Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Poor condition.
(d) Determination of Good and Poor
conditions are described in § 490.409.
§ 490.409 Calculation of national
performance management measures for
assessing bridge condition.
(a) The bridge measures in § 490.407
shall be calculated in accordance with
this section and used by State DOTs and
MPOs to carry out the bridge condition
related requirements of this part and by
FHWA to make the significant progress
determination specified in § 490.109.
(b) The condition of bridges on the
NHS, including bridges on ramps
connecting to the NHS, shall be
classified as Good, Fair, or Poor
following the criteria specified in this
paragraph. The assignment of a
classification of Good, Fair, or Poor
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
392
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Fair, or Poor based on the following
criteria:
(1) Good: When the lowest rating of
any of the 3 NBI items for a bridge
(Items 58—Deck, 59—Superstructure,
60—Substructure) is 7, 8 or 9, the bridge
will be classified as Good. When the
rating of NBI item for a culvert (Item
62—Culverts) is 7, 8, or 9, the culvert
will be classified as Good.
(2) Fair: When the lowest rating of any
of the 3 NBI items for a bridge is 5 or
6, the bridge will be classified as Fair.
When the rating of NBI item for a
culvert is 5 or 6, the culvert will be
classified as Fair.
(3) Poor: When the lowest rating of
any of the 3 NBI items for a bridge is
4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, the bridge will be
classified as Poor. When the rating of
NBI item for a culvert is 4, 3, 2, 1, or
0, the culvert will be classified as Poor.
(c) The bridge measures specified in
§ 490.407(c) shall be calculated for the
applicable bridges per paragraph (a) of
this section that pertain to each target
established by the State DOT or MPO in
§ 490.105(e) and (f), respectively, as
follows:
(1) For § 490.407(c)(1), the measure
for the Percentage of bridges classified
as in Good condition shall be computed
and reported to the one tenth of a
percent as follows:
Where:
GOOD = total number of the applicable
bridges, where their condition is Good
per paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
g = a bridge determined to be in Good
condition per paragraph (b)(1) of this
section;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item
49—Structure Length for every
applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item
52—Deck Width or value of Item 32
Approach Roadway Width for culverts
where the roadway is on a fill [i.e., traffic
does not directly run on the top slab (or
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the
headwalls do not affect the flow of traffic
for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of
this section; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable
bridges specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
Where:
POOR = total number of the applicable
bridges, where their condition is Poor
per paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
p = a bridge determined to be in Poor
condition per paragraph (b)(3) of this
section;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item
49—Structure Length for every
applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item
52—Deck Width or value of Item 32
Approach Roadway Width for culverts
where the roadway is on a fill [i.e., traffic
does not directly run on the top slab (or
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the
headwalls do not affect the flow of traffic
for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of
this section; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable
bridges specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(d) The measures identified in
§ 490.407(c) shall be used to establish
targets in accordance with § 490.105 and
report targets and conditions described
in § 490.107.
(e) The NBI Items included in this
section are found in the Recording and
Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s
Bridges, which is incorporated by
reference (see § 490.111).
within a State and bridges on the NHS
that cross a State border.
(b) For the purposes of carrying out
this section and § 490.413, a bridge will
be classified as Structurally Deficient
when one of its NBI Items, 58—Deck,
59—Superstructure, 60—Substructure,
or 62—Culverts, is 4 or less, or when
one of its NBI Items, 67—Structural
Evaluation or 71—Waterway Adequacy,
is 2 or less.
(c) For all NHS bridges including
ramps connecting to the NHS and NHS
bridges that cross a State border, FHWA
shall calculate a ratio of the total deck
area of all bridges classified as
Structurally Deficient to the total deck
area of all applicable bridges for each
State. The percentage of deck area of
bridges classified as Structurally
Deficient shall be computed by FHWA
to the one tenth of a percent as follows:
EP05JA15.025</GPH>
(a) State DOTs will maintain bridges
so that the percentage of the deck area
of bridges classified as Structurally
Deficient does not exceed 10.0 percent.
This minimum condition level is
applicable to bridges on the NHS and
bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS
EP05JA15.026</GPH>
§ 490.411 Establishment of minimum level
for condition for bridges.
(2) For § 490.407(c)(2), the measure
for the Percentage of bridges classified
as in Poor condition shall be computed
and reported to the one tenth of a
percent as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
EP05JA15.024</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
shall be based on the bridge’s condition
ratings for NBI Items 58—Deck, 59—
Superstructure, 60—Substructure, and
62—Culverts. For the purposes of
national performance measures under
the NHPP, the method of assessment to
determine the classification of a bridge
will be the minimum of condition rating
method, i.e., the condition ratings for
lowest rating of a bridge’s 3 NBI Items,
58—Deck, 59—Superstructure, and 60—
Substructure, and will determine the
classification of a bridge. For culverts,
the rating of its NBI Item, 62—Culverts,
will determine its classification. The
NHS bridges will be classified as Good,
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Where:
Structurally Deficient = total number of the
applicable bridges, where their
classification is Structurally Deficient
per this section and § 490.413;
SD = a bridge classified as Structurally
Deficient per this section and § 490.413;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item
49—Structure Length for every
applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item
52—Deck Width or value of Item 32
Approach Roadway Width for culverts
where the roadway is on a fill [i.e., traffic
does not directly run on the top slab (or
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the
headwalls do not affect the flow of traffic
for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per this section and
§ 490.413; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable
bridges specified in this section and
§ 490.413.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(d) The FHWA will annually
determine the percentage of the deck
area of NHS bridges classified as
Structurally Deficient for each State
DOT and identify State DOTs that do
not meet the minimum level of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
condition for NHS bridges based on data
cleared in the NBI as of June 15 of each
year. The FHWA will notify State DOTs
of their compliance with 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2) prior to October 1 of the year
in which the determination was made.
(e) For the purposes of carrying out
this section, State DOTs will annually
submit their most current NBI data on
highway bridges to FHWA no later than
March 15 of each year.
(f) The NBI Items included in this
section are found in the Recording and
Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s
Bridges, which is incorporated by
reference (see § 490.111).
§ 490.413 Penalties for not maintaining
bridge condition.
(a) If FHWA determines for the 3-year
period preceding the date of the
determination, that more than 10.0
percent of the total deck area of bridges
in the State on the NHS is located on
bridges that have been classified as
Structurally Deficient, the following
requirements will apply.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
393
(1) During the fiscal year following
the determination, the State DOT shall
obligate and set aside in an amount
equal to 50 percent of funds
apportioned to such State for fiscal year
2009 to carry out 23 U.S.C. 144 (as in
effect the day before enactment of MAP–
21) from amounts apportioned to a State
for a fiscal year under 23 U.S.C.
104(b)(1) only for eligible projects on
bridges on the NHS.
(2) The set-aside and obligation
requirement for bridges on the NHS in
a State in this paragraph (a) for a fiscal
year shall remain in effect for each
subsequent fiscal year until such time as
less than 10 percent of the total deck
area of bridges in the State on the NHS
is located on bridges that have been
classified as Structurally Deficient as
determined by FHWA.
(b) The FHWA will make the first
determination by October 1, 2016, and
each fiscal year thereafter.
[FR Doc. 2014–30085 Filed 1–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP3.SGM
05JAP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 325-393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30085]
[[Page 325]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 2
January 5, 2015
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Part 490
National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition
for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for
the National Highway Performance Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 326]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 490
[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0053]
RIN 2125-AF53
National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 decisionmaking through
performance-based planning and programming. Section 1203 of MAP-21
identifies the national transportation goals and requires the Secretary
to promulgate a rule to establish performance measures in specified
Federal-aid highway program areas. The FHWA is issuing three separate
NPRMs to meet this requirement, and this is the second NPRM.
This NPRM proposes to establish measures for State Departments of
Transportation (State DOTs) to use to carry out the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) and to assess the condition of the
following: pavements on the National Highway System (NHS) (excluding
the Interstate System), bridges on the NHS, and pavements on the
Interstate System. The NHPP is a core Federal-aid highway program that
provides support for the condition and performance of the NHS and the
construction of new facilities on the NHS, and ensures that investments
of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support
progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a
State's asset management plan for the NHS. This NPRM proposes
regulations for the new performance aspects of the NHPP, which address:
measures, targets, and reporting. The FHWA intends to make these
performance aspects of the NHPP available to the public in a format
that is easily understandable and accessible for download.
This second NPRM also includes a discussion of the collective
rulemaking actions FHWA has or intends to take to implement MAP-21
performance-related provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015. Late
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number FHWA
USDOT-2013-0053 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-AF53). Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
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 20590, 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 20590-0001. 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 has other rulemaking efforts
underway to establish the measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c). The
first performance measure NPRM covered the proposed performance
management measures to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) and to assess serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile
traveled (VMT), and the number of serious injuries and fatalities. That
NPRM was published on March 11, 2014 (79 FR 13846). The third
performance measure NPRM will focus on measures for the performance of
the NHS, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
Program, and freight movement on the Interstate System. 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 current NPRM also proposes: The additional definitions that
would be applicable to the proposed regulations; the process State DOTs
and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) would use to establish
performance targets that reflect the measures proposed in this
rulemaking; and the methodology State DOTs would use to assess
compliance with the target achievement provision specified in MAP-21.
The NPRM also proposes the process State DOTs would follow to report on
progress toward the achievement of pavement and bridge condition-
related performance targets. Finally, this NPRM proposes minimum levels
for pavement and conditions on the Interstate System.
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. 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
IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background
V. Performance Management Measure Analysis
A. Selection of National Performance Management Measures for the
NHPP: Pavement and Bridge
B. Assessment of Selected Measures for the NHPP: Pavement and
Bridge
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and
Proposed National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP:
Pavement and Bridge
VII. 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
[[Page 327]]
program by establishing new requirements for performance management to
ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds.
Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of
the Federal-aid highway program and provides for a framework to support
improved investment decision making through a focus on performance
outcomes for key national transportation goals. As part of performance
management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds would make
transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make
progress towards national goals. The national performance goal for
bridge and pavement condition is to maintain the condition of highway
infrastructure assets in a state of good repair. The purpose of this
rulemaking is to implement these MAP-21 performance management
requirements.
Prior to MAP-21, there were no explicit requirements for State DOTs
to demonstrate that their transportation program supported national
performance outcomes. State DOTs were not required to measure
condition, to establish targets, to assess progress towards targets, or
to report on pavement and bridge condition in a nationally consistent
manner that FHWA could use to assess the condition of the entire
system. It was also difficult for FHWA to look at the effectiveness of
the Federal-aid highway program as a means to address surface
transportation performance at a national level.
This proposed rule is one of several rulemakings that DOT is or
will be conducting to implement MAP-21's new performance management
framework. The collective rulemakings would establish the regulations
needed to more effectively evaluate and report on surface
transportation performance across the country. This rulemaking proposes
regulations that would: provide for greater consistency in the
reporting of pavement and bridge conditions; require the establishment
of targets that can be aggregated at the national level; require
reporting in a consistent manner on progress achievement; and lastly
require State DOTs to make significant progress. It would also require
State DOTs to maintain their bridges and pavements at or above a
minimum condition level. State DOTs would be expected to use the
information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to
better inform their transportation planning and programming
decisionmaking. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid program
that would result from this rulemaking would provide FHWA the ability
to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably
assess the impacts of Federal funding investments.
The FHWA is required to establish measures through a rulemaking to
assess performance in 12 areas generalized as follows: (1) Serious
injuries per 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;
\1\ (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.\2\ This rulemaking is the second of three
NPRMs that together propose the establishment of performance measures
for States 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 national measures for areas 5, 6, and 7,
in the above list. Other rulemakings would establish national measures
for the remaining areas in the above list. This NPRM proposes to
establish performance measures to assess pavement and bridge conditions
on the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of
carrying out the NHPP. The four proposed measures to assess pavement
condition are: (1) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in
Good condition; (2) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in
Poor condition; (3) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the
Interstate System) in Good condition; and (4) a Percentage of pavements
on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Poor condition. The two
proposed performance measures for assessing bridge condition are: (1)
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Good Condition; and (2)
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor Condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Non-Interstate NHS'' and ``NHS (excluding the
Interstate)'' are used interchangeably throughout this NPRM and have
the same meaning.
\2\ 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 also proposes to establish the minimum level for pavement
condition for the Interstate System as required by the statute. In
addition, this NPRM proposes to establish the process for State DOTs
and MPOs to use to establish and report targets and the process that
FHWA will use to assess progress State DOTs have made in achieving
targets.
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question
The FHWA proposes the establishment of: Performance measures to be
used by State DOTs to assess the condition of pavements and bridges and
to carry out the NHPP; the process for State DOTs and MPOs to establish
targets for each of the measures; the methodology to determine whether
State DOTs have achieved their targets; the process for State DOTs to
use to report on progress for targets; and the minimum levels for
pavement conditions on the Interstate System for purposes of carrying
out 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). The FHWA also proposes to incorporate the
minimum level for condition of bridges on the NHS as required by 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
This NPRM proposes to add to subpart A general information
applicable to Part 490, to include requirements for target
establishment, reporting on progress, and how determinations would be
made on whether State DOTs have made significant progress toward NHPP
targets. Subpart A also would include definitions and clarify
terminology associated with target establishment, reporting, and making
significant progress. Subparts C and D propose performance measures to
assess pavement and bridge conditions. Section 490.105 proposes the
process to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for each
of the four pavement and two bridge measures. The State DOTs would
establish 2- and 4-year targets for a 4-year performance period for the
condition of infrastructure assets. State DOTs would establish their
first statewide targets 1 year after the effective date of this rule.
The MPOs would establish targets by either supporting the State DOT's
statewide target, or defining a target unique to the metropolitan area
each time the State DOT establishes a target. The MPOs would be
provided a 180-day period following the date at which the State DOT
establishes a target to establish their pavement and bridge targets.
Section 490.107 proposes performance reporting for State DOTs and
MPOs. The State DOT would submit their established targets in a
baseline report at the beginning of the performance period and report
progress at the midpoint and end of the performance period. State DOTs
would be allowed to adjust their 4-year target at the midpoint of the
performance period. The MPOs would not be required to provide separate
reporting to FHWA; however, State DOTs and MPOs
[[Page 328]]
would need to agree to a target establishment reporting process in the
Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in accordance with 23 CFR part 450.
Section 490.109 proposes the method FHWA would use to determine if
State DOTs have achieved or have made significant progress toward the
achievement of their NHPP targets. Significant progress would be
determined from an analysis of estimated performance/condition and
measured performance/condition of each of the NHPP targets. If
applicable, State DOTs would have the opportunity to discuss why
targets were not achieved or significant progress was not made. If a
State DOT fails to achieve significant progress for two consecutive
biennial performance reporting periods (total of 4 years), then the
State DOT is required to document in their next biennial performance
report and encouraged to document sooner, the actions they will
undertake to achieve their targets.
In subparts C and D, Sec. Sec. 490.305 and 490.405 propose the
pavement and bridge performance measures and program-specific
definitions to ensure that the proposed performance measures are clear
and consistent.
Sections 490.307 and 490.407 propose that State DOTs and MPOs use a
total of six measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges
on the NHS. The proposed pavement measures would be applicable to both
Interstate and non-Interstate NHS mainline roads and the proposed
bridge measures would be applicable for all NHS bridges, including
bridges on ramps that connect to NHS. Both the pavement and bridge
measures would reflect the percentage of the system in good and poorp
condition. The measure calculations would utilize data documented in
the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and in the National
Bridge Inventory (NBI).
Section 490.315 proposes the minimum level for condition of
pavements on the Interstate System as required by 23 U.S.C.
150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
Section 490.411 proposes to incorporate the minimum level for
condition of bridges as required by 23 U.S.C 119(f)(2).
C. Costs and Benefits
The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new
requirements proposed in this regulatory action that represent a change
to current practices for State DOTs and MPOs.\3\ The FHWA derived the
costs of components by assessing the expected increase in level of
effort from labor and additional capital needed to standardize and
update State DOT data collection and reporting systems as well as the
increase in level of effort from labor to establish and report targets.
The FHWA sought opinions from pavement and bridge Subject Matter
Experts (SME) to estimate impacts of the proposed rule. Cost estimates
were developed based on assumptions informed by information received
from SMEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Table 7 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed
in labor hours, with a corresponding loaded wage rate that varied by
the type of laborer needed to perform the activity.\4\ Where necessary,
capital costs were included as well. Following this approach, the 10-
year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $196.4
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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, FHWA expects this proposed rule to result
in improved pavement and bridge condition-related project, program, and
policy choices. The proposed rule also would yield greater
accountability for recipients of Federal funding because MAP-21-
mandated reporting would increase visibility and transparency. In
addition, the proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway
program on achieving balanced performance outcomes.
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 the
benefits, FHWA used a break-even analysis as the primary approach to
quantify benefits. For both pavements and bridges, FHWA focused its
break-even analysis on Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) savings. The FHWA
estimated the number of road miles of deficient pavement that would
have to be improved (Table 8 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and
Notices) and the number of posted bridges that would have to be avoided
(Table 9 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices) in order for
the benefits of the rule to justify the costs. The results of the
break-even analysis quantified the dollar value of the benefits that
the proposed rule must generate to outweigh the threshold value, the
estimated cost of the proposed rule, which is $196.4 million in
undiscounted dollars. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule would
surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would
outweigh the costs. The below table displays the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost and
benefits calculated for this rule.
OMB A-4--Accounting Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Discount Source/citation
Primary Low High Year dollar rate Period covered
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Annualized Monetized ($ None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... Not Quantified.
millions/year). None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
Annualized Quantified......... None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... Not Quantified.
None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 329]]
Qualitative................... With regard to the pavement condition measures, the rule is cost-beneficial if it results in the net improvement of Proposed Rule RIA.
approximately 435 miles of pavement (i.e., from Poor condition to Good) per year, or 4,350 miles over ten years, from its
current base case projection. With regard to the bridge condition measures, 0.2 year-long bridge postings would need to be
avoided per year, or 2 year-long bridge postings over ten years, in order for benefits to justify costs. Because of these
low thresholds, FHWA determines that the proposed rule benefits outweigh the costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Annualized Monetized ($/year). $21,233,675.............. ................... ................... 2012............... 7 10 Years............. Proposed Rule RIA.
$20,308,760.............. ................... ................... 2012............... 3 10 Years.............
Annualized Quantified......... None..................... None............... None............... 2012............... 7 10 Years............. Proposed Rule RIA.
None..................... None............... None............... 2012............... 3 10 Years.............
Qualitative...................
Transfers......................... None.....................
From/To....................... From:.................... ................... ................... To:................
Effects:
State, Local, and/or Tribal $21,162,705.............. ................... ................... 2012............... 7 10 Years............. Proposed Rule RIA.
Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
$20,241,409.............. ................... ................... 2012............... 3 10 Years.............
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business................ Not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number NA................. NA NA................... Proposed Rule RIA.
of small entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym or abbreviation Term
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO....................................... American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
CFR.......................................... Code of Federal Regulations.
CMAQ......................................... Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
CRCP......................................... Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.
DOT.......................................... U.S. Department of Transportation.
State DOT.................................... State department of transportation.
E.O.......................................... Executive Order.
FHWA......................................... Federal Highway Administration.
FTA.......................................... Federal Transit Administration.
HPMS......................................... Highway Performance Monitoring System.
HSIP......................................... Highway Safety Improvement Program.
HSP.......................................... Highway Safety Plan.
IRI.......................................... International Roughness Index.
MAP-21....................................... Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
MPO.......................................... Metropolitan Planning Organization.
NARA......................................... National Archives and Records Administration.
NBI.......................................... National Bridge Inventory.
NBIS......................................... National Bridge Inspection Standards.
NHPP......................................... National Highway Performance Program.
NCHRP........................................ National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
NHS.......................................... National Highway System.
NPRM......................................... Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
OMB.......................................... Office of Management and Budget.
PCCP or Jointed PCCP......................... Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.
PCI.......................................... Pavement Condition Index.
PRA.......................................... Paperwork Reduction Act.
PSR.......................................... Pavement Surface Rating.
RIA.......................................... Regulatory Impact Analysis.
RIN.......................................... Regulatory Identification Number.
RSL.......................................... Remaining Service Life.
Secretary.................................... Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
SHSP......................................... Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
TMA.......................................... Transportation Management Area.
U.S.C........................................ United States Code.
VMT.......................................... Vehicle miles traveled.
VOCs......................................... Vehicle Operating Costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 330]]
III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach
In developing the NPRMs required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c), including
this NPRM, FHWA conducted outreach efforts to obtain technical
information as well as information on operational and economic impacts
from stakeholders and the public. The State DOTs, MPOs, transit
agencies, and private/non-profit constituents across the country
participated in the outreach efforts. A discussion of each contact or
series of contacts influencing the agency's position may be found in
the docket. A summary of the contacts are described below.
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:
Conducting listening sessions and workshops to clarify
stakeholder sentiment and capture diverse opinions on the
interpretation of technical information of the potential economic and
operational impacts of implementing 23 U.S.C. 150;
Conducting 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;
Hosting webinars with targeted stakeholder audiences to
ask for their viewpoints through a chat pod or conference call; and
Attending meetings with non-DOT SMEs, 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; and to discuss and
collect information on the issues that need to be addressed or the
questions that need to be answered in the NPRMs to facilitate efficient
implementation.
B. Broader Public Consultation
It is 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, DOT provided opportunities for broader
public participation. The DOT invited 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 their
comments and suggestions about the development of the performance
measures and holding national online dialogues and listening sessions
to ask the public to post their ideas on national performance measures,
standards, and policies. The DOT 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), 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, FHWA will hold
public meetings to explain the provisions contained in these NPRMs,
including this NPRM. All such meetings will be open to the public.
However, all comments regarding the NPRMs must be submitted in writing
to the rulemaking docket.
C. Summary of Viewpoints Received
This section summarizes some of the common themes identified during
the stakeholder outreach. These themes are organized by general
concerns, pavement condition measure concerns, and bridge condition
measure concerns. It is important to note that some of the stakeholder
comments related to more than one topic. In that case, the comments
were placed under whichever theme was most directly affected.
General concerns:
Stakeholders questioned how FHWA would establish a
methodology for determining significant progress toward achieving
performance targets, and commented on the administrative burden on
State DOTs and MPOs associated with target establishment and reporting.
Stakeholders asked DOT to avoid creating a ``worst first''
approach to selecting priorities and requested that FHWA consider using
Asset Management principles to consider financial imbalances including
the concept that performance measures should not drive the selection of
projects. Stakeholders would like performance management to drive a
system-wide, risk-based project selection approach that looks at long-
term outcomes.
The stakeholders' key messages were simplicity,
consistency, and flexibility.
Pavement Condition Measures
Stakeholders suggested various analytic and empirical methods for
performance measurement. One of the suggestions was to consider the use
of Remaining Service Life (RSL) as a pavement performance measure.
Stakeholders expressed that an RSL based approach to performance
management would help agencies determine the timing and level of
rehabilitation activities. Currently, some States DOTs have pavement
and bridge measures that relate to RSL. Other suggested approaches for
pavement performance measures included the Roadway Pavement Health
Index \5\ and the Decay Ratio.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This propriety approach is intended to provide State DOTs
the ability to relate tradeoffs between RSL, pavement management
system data and life cycle costs in years and dollar metrics. This
approach may not require changes to data collection or
classification but would cost time and money to develop.
\6\ The Decay Ratio is the ratio of deck area of bridges which
have become newly deficient in the past year to the deck area of
bridges which have been repaired/rehabilitated/replaced in the past
year. More simply, Decay Ratio = (Deck Area Worse)/(Deck Area
Improved).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most stakeholders supported the use of International Roughness
Index (IRI) as a pavement performance measure. Some added that it
should not be the sole pavement performance measure and that there are
some limitations to its ability to provide agencies sufficient
information for making investment decisions. Those stakeholders that
support its use pointed to the long history of IRI and its use in HPMS
protocols.
Bridge Condition Measures
Stakeholders supported establishing bridge condition performance
measures using the existing NBI data. However, stakeholders' opinions
differed on the type of data to be used from the NBI and the processing
of that data. For example, stakeholders were divided over the use of
the ``Structurally Deficient'' classification. Some stakeholders also
provided proprietary research information on advanced bridge condition
assessment technologies and how these technologies may be used to
reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges used today as a
standard practice.
Some stakeholders commented that simply measuring the physical
[[Page 331]]
condition of a bridge does not provide a complete picture of the
infrastructure problems. In addition to the physical condition,
stakeholders suggested that FHWA consider the cost of repair or
replacement and the importance of the facility based upon how many
vehicles it served. However, others felt that element-level bridge
condition data, which provides granularity, is necessary to develop
performance metrics that can help States make better informed decisions
concerning their bridge preservation needs.
In addition, stakeholders conveyed other concerns regarding a
proposed bridge condition measure. They believed FHWA should provide
State DOTs and MPOs flexibility to move toward a national bridge
performance measure based on element-level data in the near future and
take into account other factors such as population changes.
Stakeholders were also concerned that expansion of the NHS to include
all principal arterial routes in a State may impact a State DOT's
ability to meet the minimum level for condition of bridges. Some
stakeholders suggested that the measure established for minimum
standard of bridge condition be consistent with definition of ``state
of good repair'' in the ``Bridge Preservation Guidance.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bridge Preservation Guidance (FHWA 2011) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/preservation/guide/guide.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. 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 would invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets
that collectively would 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 the implementation of some performance
provisions related to the NHPP. The FHWA is also undertaking a
rulemaking to implement new asset management requirements (RIN 2125-
AF57) under the NHPP (23 U.S.C.119). Interested persons should refer to
both rulemakings. Additional rulemakings are underway to implement
other MAP-21 performance 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Related Rulemakings
The DOT's proposal regarding MAP-21's performance requirements
would 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 will seek comment on each of these rulemakings.
1. First Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN:
2125-AF49) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The NPRM was published on March 11, 2014 at 79 FR 13846.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Propose and define national measures for the HSIP
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for 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 (This
NPRM)
a. Propose and define national measures for the condition of NHS
pavements and bridges
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
targets for NHPP
d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
e. Minimum levels for the condition of pavement on the Interstate
System
3. Third Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN:
2125-AF54)
a. Propose and define national measures for the remaining areas under
23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require measures and are not discussed under the
first and second measure rules, which includes the following: National
Performance Measures for Performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate National Highway System; CMAQ--Traffic Congestion; CMAQ--On-
Road Mobile Source Emissions; and Freight Movement on the Interstate
System
b. 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 (RINs:
2125-AF52, 2132-AB10) \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at 79 FR 31784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Supporting national goals in the scope of the planning process
b. Coordination between States, MPOs, and public transportation
providers in selecting FHWA and public transportation performance
targets
c. Integration of elements in 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 requirements in the Metropolitan
transportation plan
5. Updates to the Highway Safety Improvement Program Regulations (2125-
AF56) \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The NPRM was published on March 28, 2014 at 79 FR 17464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Integration of performance measures and targets into the HSIP
b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) updates
c. Establishment of Model Inventory of Roadway Element--Fundamental
Data Elements
d. HSIP reporting requirements
6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset Management Plan Rule (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) \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The FTA published their Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) that incorporated items 7 and 8, on October 3,
2013. This ANPRM may be found at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Define state of good repair and establish measures
[[Page 332]]
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) \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Define transit safety standards
b. Transit safety plan content and reporting requirements
9. Highway Safety Program Grants Rule (RIN: 2127-AL30, 2127-AL29) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
published their Interim Final Rule (IFR) on January 23, 2013. This
IFR may be found at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-23/pdf/2013-00682.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 would be largely 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 part 450.
B. Measures
The MAP-21 requires the establishment of performance measures, in
consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders, that would
do the following:
Carry out the NHPP and assess the condition of pavements
on the Interstate System and the NHS (excluding the Interstate System),
the condition of bridges on the NHS, and performance of the Interstate
System and NHS (excluding the Interstate System);
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.
The MAP-21 also requires the Secretary to establish the data elements
necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a
performance-based approach.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA would issue three NPRMs in sequence to propose the
measures for the areas listed above. The first NPRM focused 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. This current NPRM focuses on the
measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges, and a third
NPRM will be issued to propose the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C.
150(c) that require the establishment of measures. The FHWA anticipates
issuing these 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 would be an appropriate effective date. Additional
information on the approach to establish performance measures for the
Federal-aid highway program can be found on FHWA's Transportation
Performance Management Web site.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/schedule.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum levels for the
condition of pavements for the Interstate System necessary to carry out
the NHPP, which is proposed in this rulemaking.\17\ In addition, MAP-21
also requires FHWA to establish minimum standards for State DOTs to use
in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems,
which FHWA would propose in a separate rulemaking to establish an Asset
Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57) for the NHS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
\18\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate sections of MAP-21 require the establishment of additional
measures to assess public transportation performance.\19\ These
measures, which would be used to monitor the state of good repair of
transit facilities and to establish transit safety criteria, would be
addressed in two separate rulemakings, led by FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 333]]
In regard to the Federal Lands Transportation Program, FHWA
anticipates working with eligible Federal entities to establish
performance measures.
C. Targets
The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets
reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program
\20\ and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these
measures where applicable.\21\ The first NPRM proposed the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety
performance targets. This NPRM and the third Federal-aid highway
measure NPRM 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.\22\ A
separate rulemaking to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning
Regulations (RIN 2125-AF52) at 23 CFR part 450 discusses this
coordination requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
\21\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
\22\ 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 State Highway Safety Offices to establish
targets for 10 core highway safety program measures in the HSP, which
NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final Rule,\23\ and for
recipients of public transportation Federal funding and MPOs to
establish state of good repair and safety targets.\24\ Discussions on
these target establishment requirements are not included in this NPRM.
Rather, DOT will discuss those target establishment requirements in the
subsequent rulemakings to implement these respective provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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).
\24\ 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Plans
A number of provisions within MAP-21 require State DOTs 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 a NHS Asset Management Plan; \25\ State
DOTs to update their SHSP; \26\ MPOs serving a large TMA in areas of
non-attainment or maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan; \27\
MPOs to include a System Performance Report in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan; \28\ and State DOTs and MPOs to include a
discussion, to the maximum extent practical, in their Transportation
Improvement Program as to how the program would achieve the performance
targets they have established for the area.\29\ In addition, State DOTs
are encouraged to develop a State Freight Plan to document planned
activities and investments with respect to freight.\30\ This rulemaking
does not discuss any requirements to develop or use plans. Rather, a
discussion on the development and use of these plans would 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
\26\ 23 U.S.C. 148(d).
\27\ 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
\28\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).
\29\ 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).
\30\ MAP-21 Section 1118.
\31\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Reports
The MAP-21 section 1203 requires State DOTs to submit biennial
reports to 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.\32\ The FHWA proposed in the first NPRM that safety
progress be reported by State DOTs through the HSIP annual report and
not in the biennial report required under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). This NPRM,
under subpart A, discusses the 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting
requirement. The 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting requirement would
apply to all of the non-safety measures for the Federal-aid highway
program (i.e., the measures proposed in this NPRM and in the third
Performance Measures NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional progress reporting requirements are 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. Detailed discussions on these reporting
requirements are not included in this NPRM. 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 biennial reports, then the State DOT must
document in its next report the actions it would take to achieve the
targets.\33\ The proposed implementation of this provision is covered
in subpart A of this NPRM. For the HSIP, if a State DOT does not
achieve or make significant progress toward the achievement of its HSIP
safety targets, then the State DOT must dedicate a specified amount of
obligation limitation to safety projects and prepare an annual
implementation plan.\34\ The first performance measures NPRM discussed
this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
\34\ 23 U.S.C. 148(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, MAP-21 requires that each State DOT maintain a minimum
condition level for Interstate System 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.\35\ This NPRM discusses this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 23 U.S.C. 119(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact that
State DOTs can have on performance outcomes within the State and that
State DOTs need to consider this uncertainty in their establishment of
targets. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to consult with relevant
entities (e.g., MPOs, local transportation agencies, Federal Land
Management Agencies, tribal governments) as State DOTs establish
targets, so they can better identify and consider factors outside of
their direct control that could impact future condition/performance.
Further, MAP-21 includes special safety rules to require each State
DOT to maintain or improve safety performance on high risk rural roads
and for older drivers and pedestrians.\36\ If the State
[[Page 334]]
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 SHSP actions they intend to take to improve performance (in the
case of the older driver special rule). Guidance on how FHWA would
administer these two special rules is provided on the FHWA MAP-21 Web
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 23 U.S.C. 148(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 decisionmaking that does
not hinder performance improvement. In this regard, FHWA carefully
considered the following principles in the development of proposed
regulations for national performance 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 would be required for target establishment and
progress reporting. Limit the number of measures to one or 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 establish 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 would provide the public and decision makers a better
understanding of Federal transportation investment returns and needs.
Consider Risk--recognize that risks in the target
establishment process are inherent and that many factors, outside the
control of those that would be required to establish targets, can
impact performance.
Understand that Priorities Differ--recognize that targets
need to be established across a wide range of performance areas and
that performance trade-offs would need to be made to establish
priorities, which would 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 would be learning a great deal as
implementation occurs.
The FHWA considered these principles in this NPRM and encourages
comments on the extent to which this approach to performance measures,
set forth in this NPRM, supports the principles discussed above.
Federal Technical Assistance
The FHWA is committed to providing stewardship to State DOTs and
MPOs assisting them as they take steps to manage and improve the
performance of the highway system. As a Federal agency, FHWA is in a
unique position to utilize resources at a national level to capture and
share strategies that can improve performance. The FHWA is prepared to
dedicate resources at the national level to provide on-site assistance,
technical tools and guidance to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them in
making more effective investment decisions. It is FHWA's intent to be
engaged at a local and national level to provide resources and
assistance from the onset to identify opportunities to improve
performance and to increase the chances for full State DOT and MPO
compliance of new performance related regulations. The FHWA technical
assistance will include activities such as conducting national research
studies, developing analytical modeling tools, identifying and
promoting best practices, preparing guidance materials, and developing
data quality assurance tools. The FHWA encourages comments on how it
can help maximize opportunities for successful implementation.
V. Performance Management Measure Analysis
In consultation with State DOTs, MPOs and other stakeholders, FHWA
selected measures for this proposed rule considered to be the best
alternatives to carry out the pavement and bridge condition related
provisions of the NHPP and to use to assess pavement and bridge
condition. The FHWA evaluated the selected measures, using a common
methodology, to identify gaps that could impact successful
implementation of proposed performance measures. This section discusses
the basis for selecting the proposed performance measures and FHWA's
identification of potential implementation gaps.
A. Selection of National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP:
Pavement and Bridge
The FHWA considered views from the following sources when
developing pavement and bridge measures to carry out the NHPP:
Knowledge of technical experts within DOT on the current
state of practice to monitor highway pavement and bridge condition;
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 final report for NCHRP 20-24(37)G,
``Technical Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance
Measurements.''
Pavement Condition Measure
Since 2010, through HPMS, State DOTs have submitted rutting,
Cracking_Percent, International Roughness Index (IRI), and faulting
data metrics.\37\ The FHWA's ``Conditions and Performance Report'' and
``Highway Statistics Series'' have used pavement roughness, with the
IRI as a metric, as the basis for its pavement conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Cracking_Percent refers to the data metric in HPMS and is
used as one of the metrics for determining the condition of
pavements for the performance measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on FHWA's research, most State DOTs use a common group of
pavement metrics (e.g., pavement
[[Page 335]]
roughness, percentage of pavement that is rutted, percentage of
pavement that is cracked, and the amount of misalignment between
concrete pavement slabs), to report on and manage the condition of
pavements in their State. There is not currently a nationally accepted
method for assessing pavement condition using multiple pavement
condition metrics (e.g., IRI, rutting, Cracking_Percent, faulting) that
most State DOTs use. A survey conducted as part of the 2009 National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401 study \38\
revealed that 98 percent of State DOTs collect distress data (e.g.,
faulting, cracking) and 95 percent collect roughness data to monitor
network level pavement conditions. Similarly, an assessment of pavement
management practices conducted by FHWA indicated that, for the NHS, all
State DOTs monitor roughness and rutting, 94 percent monitor
Cracking_Percent, 95 percent monitor faulting (with concrete surfaced
pavements), and 31 percent monitor structural capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Flintsch G., McGhee K., NCHRP Synthesis 401, ``Quality
Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection'', 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA selected these metrics for calculation of the performance
measures to assess pavement conditions in this rulemaking. In support
of the selection of these metrics, FHWA evaluated their use in highway
pavement investment decisions by State DOTs. The Texas Transportation
Institute conducted a study, called the ``Pavement Score Synthesis.''
The synthesis study indicated that nearly all State DOTs use a
combination of pavement condition attributes and a variety of methods
and procedures to rate the condition of pavements. Most of these
methods and procedures included some aspect of pavement roughness and
at least one other pavement condition metric. A recently completed
NCHRP project \39\ included a detailed review of data collected and
reported by State DOTs on pavement condition in their State pavement
management system as compared to the data they report in the HPMS. This
project included a national survey that was provided to all State DOTs
and a detailed assessment using data collected and reported from eight
State DOTs. The project's report indicated that assessments of pavement
condition using State DOT methods of qualifying good, fair, and poor
conditions were noticeably different from an approach based solely on
IRI conditions as reported in the HPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Zimmerman, K., Smadi, O. NCHRP 20-24(82), ``Increasing
Consistency in HPMS Pavement Data,'' 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing its proposed measure, FHWA considered the use of
existing methods such as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) developed
by the Army Corps of Engineers, the RSL concept using prediction models
developed for the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, under NCHRP 1-37A \40\, and State
DOT-developed methods to calculate a pavement condition rating. The
FHWA found that no single existing method was used predominantly enough
to be considered as a national standard. In addition, existing methods,
such as the PCI, were too challenging to implement nationally due to
the burden and time associated with introducing pavement condition
metrics that are not currently reported at a national level through a
system like HPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,'' NCHRP 1-37A, 2004, https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_toc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA has been working for the past several years in
consultation with State DOTs to evaluate approaches that could more
completely assess pavement condition at a national level. Based on
these efforts, FHWA proposes to establish measures to assess pavement
condition that meet the following criteria:
Consider more than roughness.
Utilize pavement condition attributes currently reported
at a national level.
Utilize pavement condition attributes where data
collection and reporting standards exist today.
Result in an assessment approach that is consistent with
typical conceptual approaches used today by State DOTs to assess
condition.
Consider an approach that can be implemented so that State
DOTs can establish targets within a 12-month time period after FHWA
establishes the performance measures without introducing a considerable
burden on State DOTs.
The FHWA proposes in this NPRM a measure for State DOTs to use to
assess pavement condition that satisfies the criteria above and is
based on data within the HPMS, including: IRI, rutting for asphalt
surfaced pavements, faulting for jointed concrete surfaced pavements,
and Cracking_Percent. The FHWA proposes pavement condition measures
that would reflect the predominant condition represented by each of
these HPMS data elements.
The four proposed measures to assess pavement condition are: (1)
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition; (2)
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition; (3)
Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in
Good condition; and (4) a Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding
the Interstate System) in Poor condition.
The FHWA is proposing measures to represent both the percentage of
Good pavements and the percentage of Poor pavements that would support
sound asset management practices. The FHWA intends to implement a
condition measurement approach that will recognize the need to both
preserve Good and Fair conditions and improve Poor conditions. The FHWA
believes that a measurement approach that focused only on increasing
Good conditions or only on reducing Poor conditions may result in
practices that would not optimize the benefits of infrastructure
investments. This same approach is proposed for the bridge condition
measures as discussed in the next section.
Bridge Condition Measure
The FHWA, using data from the NBI, monitors bridge conditions in
the United States. This database was established in 1972 and State DOTs
have been required to submit annual reports to FHWA since 1978. The NBI
is a highly consistent set of national data for evaluating the
condition and performance of bridges. The National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS) in 23 CFR part 650 contribute to this consistency. The
NBIS established the national standards for the proper and uniform
inspection and evaluation of highway bridges. The NBIS include the
specified methods by which inspections are to be carried out,
qualifications for those charged with carrying out inspections, and
certain bridge data that is to be collected and retained for collection
by FHWA. For these reasons, FHWA considers the NBI and its data the
definitive source for national bridge information and the most
appropriate metric for bridge condition measures.
The ``Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure
Health Pilot Study Report'' \41\ evaluated different methods to assign
bridge condition using NBI data as a metric for defining a Good, Fair,
or Poor classification. For this study, the NBI
[[Page 336]]
database was selected as the logical data source because of the
consistency of its representation of over 40 years of collected data,
and its use by nearly every State DOT as the current basis for their
bridge decisionmaking. The study discussed and evaluated four different
weighted average methods and one minimum condition rating method. The
four weighted average methods consisted of calculating a measure of
structural adequacy based on a weighted average of deck,
superstructure, and sub-structure condition ratings of a bridge. The
minimum condition rating method calculated a measure of structural
adequacy based on the lowest condition rating of deck, superstructure,
and sub-structure of a bridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Guerre, et al., FHWA-HIF-12-049, ``Improving FHWA's Ability
to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report,'' 2012
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/hif12049.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings of the study concluded that for the Interstate System:
Percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor
were consistent for the four different weighted average methods and the
minimum condition rating method with little variation;
the minimum condition rating method resulted in the
highest percentage of bridges in Poor condition;
percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor
based on the four weighted average methods were not sensitive to the
weights; and
bridge deck conditions alone are typically not the driving
factor in the Good, Fair, or Poor classifications.
The FHWA conducted an additional assessment of the different
methods and observed that the magnitude in differences between
condition ratings for individual NBI items was somewhat nullified when
a final average or weighted average method was employed. The
``Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health
Pilot Study Report'' made a similar observation. This masking or
obscuring of possible poor bridge conditions is a major concern with
these methods. Although these methods could be further refined to
possibly resolve this problem, the development, subjectivity, and
complexity of such methods makes them less desirable than the simple
minimum condition rating method, particularly when analyses indicate
that a refined weighted method would result in the same general
classification as the minimum condition rating method.
The FHWA proposes to establish two bridge performance measures
using a classification system of Good, Fair, and Poor. These are based
on an assessment of bridge condition data from the NBI. The measures
would reflect the lowest component condition rating for the bridge.\42\
The FHWA further proposes to weight this classification by the
respective deck area of the bridge and express condition totals as a
percentage of the total bridge deck area in a State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ While FHWA proposes bridge condition measures that would
reflect the lowest condition level represented by different bridge
elements, the proposed pavement condition measures would reflect the
predominant condition represented by certain HPMS data elements. The
FHWA is proposing these differing approaches for pavement and
bridges primarily due to the need to minimize safety risks
associated with bridges. Additional information is provided in the
Section-by-Section discussion to describe the differences in the
methods to determine pavement and bridge conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two proposed performance measures for assessing bridge
condition are: (1) Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Good
Condition; and (2) Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor
Condition. These proposed performance measures are based on the
assessment of condition ratings for the following NBI Items: 58--Deck,
59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, and 62--Culverts.
B. Assessment of Selected National Performance Management Measures for
the NHPP: Pavement and Bridge
The FHWA used a common methodology of 12 criteria to assess the
appropriateness of the measure for national use and the readiness to
implement the performance measure accurately and reliably. As a result
of its assessment, FHWA assigned one of the following three ratings for
each criterion.
Green--Criterion is fully met for the candidate measure
Yellow--Criterion is partially met for the candidate measure
and work is underway to fully meet the criterion
Red--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
FHWA could address through this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness
of the measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess pavement and
bridge conditions. The rulemaking docket contains a description of the
methodology used for this assessment.
Pavement Condition Performance Management Measures
The following four pavement performance measures for assessing
condition proposed by FHWA are calculated from data from the HPMS: (1)
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition; (2)
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition; (3)
Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in
Good condition; and (4) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding
the Interstate System) in Poor condition. The assessment process
described earlier in this section evaluates these pavement performance
measures for assessing conditions based on existing state-of-the-
practice. Table 1 provides a summary of this assessment.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 337]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.001
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
The performance measures identified in this NPRM are considered to
be ready for use when all of the criteria are rated Green. The
remaining measures require additional analysis before they can be used
on a regular basis for measuring the performance of the transportation
system. The proposal outlined in this NPRM attempts to address some of
the gaps that exist today for the yellow and red criteria 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. The FHWA proposal addresses the gaps that
exist today primarily through improvement of data collection
techniques, requiring the use of established AASHTO Standards,
establishing a standard method of calculation, and requiring data
quality management programs in every State DOT. When establishing the
proposed pavement condition measures, FHWA considered the following
with respect to the criteria above:
Criterion A3--consider data standards that allow for new
data
[[Page 338]]
collection methods as technologies improve. Consider an approach that
allows for pavement metrics to change in the future as data standards
are updated and improved.
Criterion A4--recognize that the individual pavement
metrics are not typically used to drive decisionmaking. Consider how
the four metrics can be used collectively to develop a pavement measure
that is more closely tied to decisionmaking.
Criterion A6--consider changes to the current requirements
to collect, store, and report data to the HPMS to support the proposed
pavement condition measure.
Criterion B1--recognize the time lag of data available in
national data sources versus the availability of data in State-
maintained sources in requirements associated with proposed pavement
measures, target establishment, and evaluation of progress.
Criteria B2 and B4--consider an approach that utilizes
data collection standards and data reporting requirements that would
improve consistency and accuracy in application across the country and
recognize that these improvements can take time to implement. Recognize
that State DOTs have been collecting and reporting pavement condition
metrics for many years and that the standards, frequency, and formats
have changed during this time.
Criterion B3--consider an approach that improves the
completeness of data coverage in the HPMS and recognize that State data
submissions often have not represented the full extent of the NHS.
Criterion B6--recognize the essential need for a national
data source for pavement condition and that implementing minor
adjustments to existing State DOT methodologies would facilitate the
creation of such a national data source at a relatively low cost.
Furthermore, many States already have technology, such as Geographic
information Systems or Enterprise Resource Systems that can integrate
data from various sources to support decisionmaking on a larger scale
to aid with asset management and performance reporting programs.
Bridge Condition Performance Management Measures
The FHWA proposes two performance measures for assessing bridge
condition: (1) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS Bridges Classified as in
Good condition; and (2) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS Bridges
Classified as in Poor condition. This data includes the following NBI
items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, and 62--
Culverts. These bridge performance measures for assessing condition
attributes were evaluated using the, existing state-of-the-practice,
assessment process described in Section A.
All of the criteria, when applied to the proposed bridge
performance measures, can be fully met largely because FHWA and
stakeholders recognize that the NBI is, and has been for decades, the
most consistent and comprehensive set of national data for evaluating
the condition of bridges. Because the NBIS contains a consistent set of
required standards for State DOTs to use for the proper inspection and
evaluation of bridges for safety and serviceability, its use results in
consistent and accurate data that goes into the NBI. Nearly every State
DOT uses the NBI in some form as the basis for their current bridge
decisionmaking. The calculation of the performance measures for
assessing bridge condition provides flexibility to accommodate future
changes such as the use of element level bridge data. In addition, the
proposed measures are consistent with the feedback that FHWA has
received from stakeholders. Therefore, FHWA considers the proposed
bridge performance measures ready for use.
In this NPRM, FHWA is proposing the establishment of measures to
assess pavement and bridge conditions. These measures would be used by
State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets, develop plans, and report on
progress. As discussed in the background of this proposal, FHWA is
conducting a related rulemaking to establish requirements for the
development of Asset Management Plans; this NPRM includes proposed
minimum standards for State DOTs to use to develop and operate pavement
and bridge management systems (RIN 2125-AF56). State DOTs use these
systems to develop investment strategies for managing the conditions of
their pavement and bridge networks. Further, FHWA has issued a proposed
rule to update 23 CFR 450 to integrate performance in the scope of the
metropolitan and statewide planning process (RIN 2125-AF52, 2132-AB10).
Collectively, these three rulemakings discuss how the proposed measures
would be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess and manage pavement and
bridge conditions.
Transportation decision makers consider a range of factors that
ultimately influence project level investments decisions and typically
reflect the transportation priorities for a local area or region. For
example, a State DOT may, as a priority, focus their decisionmaking on
investments that first address the sections of highways with higher
traffic volumes or fatalities. With the exception of the minimum
condition requirements for Interstate pavements and NHS bridges, FHWA
is not proposing an implementation approach in this NPRM that would
suggest how a State DOT or MPO would prioritize investment decisions.
State DOTs and MPOs consider their priorities through the planning
process.
The requirement of reporting and assessing targets would not
necessarily dictate how a State DOT or MPO should prioritize their
decision-making in establishing the targets required by 23 U.S.C.
150(d). A State DOT or MPO may consider a number of factors, such as
funding availability and local transportation priorities, that could
impact the targets they ultimately establish for pavement and bridge
system conditions. For this reason, as stated in the discussion
sections for Sec. Sec. 490.105 and 490.109, the State DOT or MPO may
elect to establish targets that represent a decline in pavement or
bridge system conditions. Once established, the State DOT and MPO would
use their targets to program investments by selecting sections of
highway that would be treated to preserve or improve condition. The
proposed regulation allows a State DOT or MPO to make decisions on the
location of project investments. The FHWA encourages State DOTs and
MPOs to select projects that will maximize the investment returns in
improving system conditions.
The measures that are being proposed in this rulemaking are
intended to summarize the condition based on the physical attributes of
the pavement and bridge facility. Consequently, under this proposal a
pavement or bridge would be rated in the same condition (Good, Fair, or
Poor) regardless of the facility's location; functional class; level of
use; environment; or impact the facility may have on other aspects of
transportation performance, such as safety and traffic congestion. The
FHWA is seeking comment from the public on whether the measures should
reflect additional factors that could influence decision making, such
as facility location, functional class, level of use, environment, or
impact it may have on other aspects of transportation performance.
[[Page 339]]
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and
Proposed National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP:
Pavement and Bridge
This Section-by-Section discusses how the proposed regulations
address MAP-21's charge to establish national performance measures for
State DOTs and MPOs to assess the condition of pavements and bridges to
carry out the NHPP. The common aspects of the proposed rulemaking,
related to reporting, significant progress determination, and target
development, are discussed in subpart A: General Information. For the
bridge and pavement performance measures, the proposed rule is
separated by asset.\43\ Subpart C addresses the Pavement performance
measures and subpart D addresses the Bridge performance measures.
Subparts C and D provide the requirements for the Pavement and Bridge
performance measures, including methodologies for data collection, data
requirements, a calculation process for evaluating condition,
establishment or identification of minimal level of condition, and
penalties for not maintaining condition. The Section-by-Section
discussion also addresses procedural discrepancies in current data
collection and reporting and attempts to update them utilizing the
latest research and state-of-the-practice experience to provide
consistent national performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Subpart B, addressing the HSIP-related performance
management measures, was proposed in the first Federal-aid Highway
Performance Management Measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Section-by-Section Discussion for the Subpart A: General
Information, Target establishment, reporting, and NHPP Significant
Progress Determination
Discussion of Sec. 490.101 General Definitions
The FHWA proposes a section of general definitions. The first NPRM
regarding the establishment of measures for carrying out the HSIP
included several definitions (HPMS, measure, metric, non-urbanized area
and target) that are repeated in this NPRM to provide clarity in the
implementation of the proposed performance measures.
The FHWA proposes to define ``Full Extent'' to delineate data
collection methods that utilize a sampling approach versus those that
use a continuous form of data collection.
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.\44\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Highway Performance Monitoring System, FHWA Office of
Policy Information. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/nahpms.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to define ``mainline highway'' to limit the
extent of the highway system to be included in the scope of the
proposed pavement performance measures. The proposed definition for
mainline highway includes the primary traveled portion of the roadway
and excludes ramps, climbing lanes, turn lanes, auxiliary lanes,
shoulders, and non-normally traveled pavement surfaces.
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.
The FHWA proposes a definition for ``National Bridge Inventory
(NBI)'' because it is the data system that would be used to establish
the measure for assessing the condition of the bridges on the NHS and
the targets for the measure, and the assessment of progress toward
achieving the established targets. This definition is based on the
description of an inventory as required by 23 U.S.C. 144(b)(1) and 23
U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D).
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 for
urbanized and non-urbanized areas. For target-establishment 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.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``Performance
period'' to establish a definitive period of time during which
condition/performance would be measured, evaluated, and reported. The
frequency of measurement and target establishment for the measures
proposed to implement 23 U.S.C. 150 is not directly or indirectly
defined in statute. The FHWA proposes a consistent time period of 4
calendar years that would be used to assess non-safety condition/
performance. This time period aligns with the timing of the biennial
performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) and is
consistent with a typical planning cycle for most State DOTs and MPOs
(e.g., State and MPO transportation improvement programs are required
to cover a 4-year period; metropolitan plans are also required to be
updated every 4 or 5 years). The
[[Page 340]]
proposed calendar year basis is consistent with data reporting
requirements currently in place to report pavement and bridge
conditions, which are also done on a calendar year basis.
The FHWA proposes a definition for ``Performance period'' that
would cover a 4-year period beginning on January 1 of the calendar year
in which targets are due to FHWA, as discussed in Sec. 490.105. Within
a performance period, condition/performance would be measured and
evaluated to: (1) Assess condition/performance with respect to baseline
condition/performance; and (2) track progress toward the achievement of
the target that represents the intended condition/performance level at
the midpoint and at the end of that time period. The term ``Performance
period'' applies to all proposed measures in this Part, except the
proposed measures for the HSIP provided for in Sec. 490.209 where FHWA
proposed a 1 calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target
establishment and reporting.
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.
Discussion of Sec. 490.103 Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing in Sec. 490.103 data requirements that apply
to more than one subpart in part 490. Additional proposed data
requirements that are unique to each subpart are included and discussed
in their respective subpart.
In this section, FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would submit
urbanized area boundaries in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual. The
boundaries of urbanized areas would be as identified through the most
recent U.S. Decennial Census unless FHWA approves adjustments to the
urbanized area, as submitted by State DOTs and allowed for under 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(34). These boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the
year the Baseline Performance Report is due, and are applicable to the
entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved
adjustments to the urbanized area boundary during the performance
period. The FHWA proposes that the State DOT submitted boundary
information would be the authoritative data source for the target scope
for the additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas (Sec.
490.105(e)(3)), progress reporting (Sec. 490.107(b)), and IRI rating
(Sec. 490.313(b)(1)) for the measures identified in Sec.
490.105(c)(1)-(3). As discussed in Sec. 490.105(d)(3), any changes in
urbanized area boundaries during a performance period would not be
accounted for until the following performance period. The FHWA-approved
urbanized area data available in HPMS on June 15th (HPMS due date)
prior to the due date of the Baseline Performance Report is to be used
for this purpose. For example, State DOTs shall submit their first
Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1, 2016. The FHWA
approved urbanized area data available in HPMS on June 16, 2016 is to
be used.
Section 490.103(c) is reserved.
In Sec. 490.103(d), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would continue
to submit NHS limit data in accordance with HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA
proposed that the State DOT submitted NHS information would be the
authoritative data source for determining measure applicability (Sec.
490.105(c)), target scope (Sec. 490.105(d)), progress reporting (Sec.
490.107(b)), and determining significant progress (Sec. 490.109(d))
for the measures identified in Sec. 490.105(c)(1)-(3). As discussed in
Sec. 490.105(e)(3)(i), the NHS limits dataset referenced in the
Baseline Performance Report are to be applied to the entire performance
period, regardless of changes to the NHS approved and submitted to HPMS
during the performance period.
Discussion of Sec. 490.105 Establishment of Performance Targets
The declared policy under 23 U.S.C. 150(a) transforms the Federal-
aid highway program and encourages the most efficient investment of
Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation
goals, increasing accountability and transparency in the Federal-aid
highway program, and improving investment decisionmaking. To this end,
FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets that would
support the national transportation goals while improving investment
decision-making processes.
A number of considerations were raised during the performance
management stakeholder outreach sessions regarding target
establishment, such as: Providing flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs,
coordinating through the planning process, allowing for appropriate
time for target achievement, and allowing State DOTs and MPOs to
incorporate risks. Using these considerations, FHWA created a set of
principles to develop an approach to implement the target establishment
requirements in MAP-21. These principles aimed to develop an approach
that:
Provides for a new focus for the Federal-aid program on
the MAP-21 national goals under 23 U.S.C. 150(b);
improves investment decisionmaking;
considers the need for local performance trade-off
decisionmaking;
provides for flexibility in the establishment of targets;
allows for an aggregated view of anticipated condition/
performance; and
considers budget constraints.
In Sec. 490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that would
be followed by State DOTs and MPOs in the establishment of targets for
all measures identified in Sec. 490.105(c), which include the proposed
measures in both this performance management NPRM and the third
performance management NPRM. These requirements are being proposed to
implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target
establishment provisions in a manner that provides for the consistency
necessary to evaluate and report progress at a State, MPO, and national
level, while also providing a degree of flexibility for State DOTs and
MPOs.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(a) for State DOTs and MPOs to
establish quantifiable targets for each performance measure identified
in Sec. 490.105(c). In Sec. 490.105(b), the performance targets for
carrying out the HSIP would be established in accordance with Sec.
490.209 of the first performance management NPRM.
In Sec. 490.105(d), FHWA proposes that State DOTs establish
statewide targets that represent performance outcomes of the
transportation network within the respective State boundary, and that
MPOs establish targets that represent performance outcomes of the
transportation network within their respective metropolitan planning
area. State DOTs and, if applicable, MPOs are encouraged to coordinate
their target-establishment with neighboring states and MPOs to the
extent practicable. The FHWA further proposes in Sec. 490.105(d) that
State DOTs and MPOs establish targets that represent performance
outcomes of the entire transportation network required for proposed
measures regardless of ownership, including NHS bridges that cross a
State border.
The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact the
State DOT and the MPO can have on the performance outcomes within the
State and the metropolitan planning area, respectively, and recognizes
that the State DOT and the MPO need to consider this uncertainty when
[[Page 341]]
establishing targets. For example, some Federal and tribal lands
contain roads and bridges on the NHS that State DOTs would need to
consider (as appropriate) when establishing targets. The FHWA
anticipates that State DOTs and MPOs would need to consult with
relevant entities (e.g., relevant MPOs, State DOTs, local
transportation agencies, Federal Land Management Agencies, tribal
governments) as they establish targets to better identify and consider
factors outside of their direct control that could impact future
condition/performance.
The FHWA also recognizes that the limits of the NHS could change
between the time of target establishment and the time of progress
evaluation and reporting for the targets for measures specified in
sections Sec. 490.105(c)(1) through (3). State DOTs may request
modifications to the NHS, which could result in additions, deletions or
relocations. In one instance with MAP-21, segments were added to the
NHS. Such changes may alter the measures reported, which could then
impact how an established target relates to actual measured
performance. For example, if NHS limits are changed after a State DOT
establishes the target, actual measured performance of the
transportation network within the changed NHS limits would represent a
different set of highways as compared to what was originally used to
establish the target. This difference could impact a State DOT's
ability to make significant progress toward achieving targets. Thus,
for establishing targets for NHS, FHWA believes that it will be
important for the State DOT to ensure that the data used to establish
the targets is accessible, and the information about the data is
properly documented. Consequently, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
need to describe the extent of the NHS used for target establishment.
The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs declare and describe their
urbanized area boundaries. This information would be included, along
with reporting targets, in the Baseline Performance Period Report
described in Sec. 490.107(b)(1). These NHS limits and urbanized area
boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the year the Baseline
Performance Report is due, and are applicable to the entire performance
period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved adjustments to the
NHS limits during the performance period. In Sec. 490.105(d)(3), FHWA
proposes that any changes in NHS limits or urbanized area boundaries
during a performance period would not be accounted for until the
following performance period.
In Sec. 490.105(e), FHWA proposes the State DOT requirements for
the establishment of targets for all measures identified in paragraph
490.105(c), with applicable transportation network for those targets
(target scope) defined in paragraph 490.105(d). Pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
150(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 150(e), FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(e)(1)
that State DOTs would establish targets within 1 year of the effective
date of this rule, and for each performance period thereafter the State
DOTs would establish and report the targets to FHWA by the due date
provided in Sec. 490.107(b)(1). The FHWA anticipates the final rule
for this proposal to be effective no later than October 1, 2015. This
would allow for at least a 1-year period for States to establish
targets so that they can be reported in the first biennial performance
report which would be due to FHWA by October 1, 2016. The FHWA
recognizes that if the final rule is effective after October 1, 2015,
the due date to report State DOT targets for the first performance
period may need to be adjusted. If it becomes clear that the final rule
won't be effective until after October 1, 2015, FHWA will consider
adjusting the due date in the final rule or will issue implementation
guidance that would provide State DOTs a 1-year period to establish and
report targets.
The proposed schedule would require the establishment and reporting
of targets at the beginning of each performance period or every 4
years. With the exception of the allowance proposed in Sec.
490.105(e)(6), FHWA recommends that State DOTs would not have the
ability to change targets reported for a performance period.
Considering this proposed limitation, State DOTs would need to provide
for sufficient time to fully evaluate their targets before they are due
to be reported to FHWA.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in Sec.
490.105 (e)(2) that State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs to
establish consistent targets, to the maximum extent practicable. The
coordination would be accomplished in accordance with 23 CFR 450. The
FHWA recognizes the need for State DOTs and MPOs to have a shared
vision on expectations for future condition/performance in order for
there to be a jointly owned target establishment process.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to
establish additional targets for any of the proposed measures in
Subparts C and D, beyond the required statewide target. The State DOT
could establish additional targets for any number and combination of
urbanized areas and could establish a target for the non-urbanized area
for any or all of the proposed measures. This is intended to give the
State flexibility when setting targets, and to aid the State in
accounting for differences in urbanized and the non-urbanized area. For
instance, a State DOT could choose to establish additional targets for
a single urbanized area, a number of the urbanized areas, or all of the
urbanized areas separately or collectively. For States that want to
establish a non-urbanized target, it would be a single target that
applies to the non-urbanized area statewide. If the State DOT elects to
establish any additional targets, they need to be declared and
described in the State Biennial Performance Report just after the start
date of a performance period (i.e., Baseline Performance Period
Report). The FHWA intends to issue guidance regarding the voluntary
establishment of additional performance targets for urbanized areas and
the non-urbanized area.
If a State DOT chooses to establish additional performance targets,
it would increase the number of performance targets that it reports.
For example, at a minimum, State DOTs would be required to establish
four statewide targets for the pavement condition measures, as
specified in Sec. 490.307. If a State DOT chooses to establish
additional targets for all 4 pavement condition measures for the single
largest urbanized area in its state, the State DOT would increase the
total number of pavement condition targets to eight (4 required targets
+ 4 additional urbanized area targets = 8).
For each additional target established, State DOTs would evaluate
whether they have made progress towards achieving each target and
report on that progress in their biennial performance report in
accordance with Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B).
Any additional targets the State DOT chooses to establish would not
be subject to the significant progress assessment in Sec. 490.109.
Because these additional targets are optional and subcomponents of
targets established under Sec. 490.105(d), including them in the
significant progress assessment proposed in Sec. 490.109 could result
in ``double counting'' during that assessment. The FHWA believes that
excluding these additional targets from the significant progress
assessment in Sec. 490.109 provides an opportunity for some
flexibility with respect to establishing the targets and may
[[Page 342]]
encourage State DOTs to establish these additional targets.
Historically, the Census has defined urbanized areas every 10
years, and these boundaries can be adjusted (see 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34)).
The FHWA recognizes that the urbanized area boundaries and resulting
non-urbanized area boundary have the potential to change on varying
schedules. Changing a boundary during a performance period may lead to
changes in the measures reported for the area, and could impact how an
established target relates to actual measured performance. Thus, FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would need to describe the urbanized area
boundaries and the non-urbanized area boundary in place at the start of
a performance period in the Baseline Performance Period Report, and use
those same boundaries throughout a performance period. This will
eliminate the potential for inconsistencies in the extent of the
network used to establish targets and calculate measures in urbanized
areas and the non-urbanized area, and provide consistency in reporting
established targets for those areas.
The urbanized area boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the
year the Baseline Performance Report is due and are applicable to the
entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved
adjustments to an area boundary during the performance period for other
reasons. Any changes in urbanized area boundaries during a performance
period would not be accounted for until the following performance
period.
The FHWA is seeking comments on this approach for establishing
optional additional targets for urbanized areas and the non-urbanized
area. The FHWA would also like comments on any other flexibilities it
could provide to or identify for State DOTs related to the voluntary
establishment of additional targets. Some examples include:
Providing options for establishing different additional
targets throughout the State, particularly for the States' non-
urbanized area; and
Expanding the boundaries that can be used in establishing
additional targets (e.g., metropolitan planning area boundaries, city
limit boundaries, etc.).
As described in Sec. 490.105(f), an MPO would have the option to
establish a quantifiable target for its metropolitan planning area. As
described in 23 CFR 450.312, the boundaries of the metropolitan
planning area include, at a minimum, the entire existing urbanized area
(as defined by the Census Bureau) plus the contiguous area expected to
become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period. The FHWA recognizes
the challenges in coordinating targets between State DOTs and MPOs,
especially in cases where metropolitan planning areas across multiple
State boundaries. The FHWA intends for State DOTs and MPOs to
collectively consider goals and issues when establishing both State DOT
and MPO targets. For reporting purposes, FHWA expects MPOs to report
progress to the relevant State DOT for the entire metropolitan planning
area.
To illustrate the differences in boundaries and how they might be
addressed for one of the pavement condition measures, the following
example is provided regarding the target establishment boundary
differences that could exist in the State of Maryland today.
Urbanized Areas: Based on the 2010 Census, the State of
Maryland contains part or all of 11 urbanized areas. Of these urbanized
areas, 5 are shared with neighboring States.
Metropolitan Planning Areas: Currently, the State contains
part or all of six metropolitan planning areas. Of these areas, four
metropolitan planning areas are shared with neighboring States. (A map
of Metropolitan Planning Areas and Urbanized Areas of the State of
Maryland is included in the docket.)
Statewide Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional State
target for the Percentage of Interstate System lane-miles in Good
condition within the State's urbanized areas would represent those
portions of the 11 urbanized areas within the geographic boundary of
the State of Maryland, in aggregate.
Single Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional urbanized
area target for a single urbanized area would represent the anticipated
Percentage of Interstate System lane-mileage in Good condition within
the identified urbanized area, based on the corresponding boundary
described Baseline Performance Period Report. In the case of the
Hagerstown urbanized area, the target would be established for the
portion of the urbanized area in the State of Maryland.
MPO Target Extent: Each of the six MPOs would establish
individual targets for representing the anticipated Percentage of
Interstate System lane-mileage in Good condition within their entire
metropolitan planning area, regardless of State boundary. In the case
of the Hagerstown--Eastern Panhandle MPO in Maryland/West Virginia/
Pennsylvania, the MPO would establish target for Interstate System
lane-mileage in Good pavement condition within its metropolitan
planning boundary that extends beyond Maryland State boundary and into
Pennsylvania State boundary, while the Maryland DOT would establish its
target for the area only within its State boundary.
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).
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(e)(4) that State DOTs establish
targets with a 2-year time horizon (i.e., 2-year target) and a 4-year
time horizon (i.e., 4-year target) for each performance period. Each
performance period, defined in Sec. 490.101, would begin on the
January 1 of the year in which the State DOT target is reported (i.e.,
State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report required in Sec.
490.107(b)(1)) to FHWA and would extend for a duration of 4 years.
Additionally, the midpoint of a performance period would occur 2
calendar years after the beginning of a performance period. Thus, 2-
year targets would be the anticipated or intended condition/performance
level at the midpoint of each performance period, and 4-year targets
would be the anticipated or intended condition/performance level at the
end of each performance period. It is important to emphasize that
established targets (2-year target and 4-year target) would need to be
considered as interim conditions/performance levels that lead toward
the accomplishment of longer-term performance expectations in the State
DOT's long-range statewide transportation plan \45\ and NHS asset
management plans.\46\ As defined in Sec. 490.101, a target is a
numeric value that represents a quantifiable level of condition/
performance in an expression defined by a measure. The FHWA proposes
that a target would be a single numeric value representing the intended
or anticipated condition/performance level at a specific point in time.
For example, the proposed measure, Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition (in Sec. 490.307(a)(1)), would be
a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition
(Sec. 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA
proposes that a target for this measure would be a percentage of lane-
miles of the Interstate System in Good condition expressed in one tenth
of a percent. As a hypothetical example, a 2-year target and a 4-year
target would be 39.5% and 38.5%, respectively for
[[Page 343]]
the proposed measure Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System
in Good condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 23 U.S.C. 135(f).
\46\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA is proposing this definitive performance period while
recognizing that planning cycles and time-horizons for long-term
performance expectations differ among State DOTs. The FHWA felt that
although differences exist, it was necessary to utilize a 4-year
performance period considering the following implementation
expectations:
Provide for a link between the interim, short-term targets
(i.e., 2-year and 4-year time horizons) to individual State DOT's long-
term performance expectations as part of performance-based planning and
programming process;
Ensure the time horizon is long enough to allow for
condition/performance change to occur through the delivery of
programmed projects;
Align the schedule of reporting on targets and the
evaluation of progress toward achieving the targets with the biennial
performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e); and
Report targets using a consistent performance period as
part of the evaluation of the State DOTs' effectiveness of performance-
based planning process to the Congress by October 1, 2017, as required
by 23 U.S.C. 135(h).
The FHWA anticipates that the State DOTs would establish targets
for the measures listed in Sec. 490.105(c) and report the established
targets to FHWA by the statutory deadline for the first biennial report
of October 1, 2016.\47\ The FHWA considered a number of alternatives
for a consistent time horizon (i.e., performance period) across the
State DOTs to ensure consistent reporting of targets and assessment of
progress toward achieving those targets for carrying out the
requirements in the statutory provisions.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
\48\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e), 23 U.S.C. 135(h), and 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA considered the data collection cycles associated
with other proposed measures. The FHWA also assessed the inherent time
lag between data collection and target establishment due to necessary
data processing, data quality management, data analysis, and other
required business processes necessary for target establishment. The
FHWA intends to minimize the time lag between the end of a performance
period and the time of subsequent biennial performance reporting under
23 U.S.C. 150(e) to ensure a timely assessment of progress toward
achieving the targets. Thus, FHWA proposes that the first 4-year
performance period start on January 1, 2016, and end on December 31,
2019, and subsequent performance periods would follow thereafter, for
the measures listed in Sec. 490.105(c). A diagram for proposed
performance periods for target establishment, condition/performance
measure data collection and assessment, and biennial performance
reporting is exhibited in Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.003
[[Page 344]]
As shown in Figure 1, for the first performance period, the latest
measured condition/performance data through December 31, 2015, is the
baseline condition/performance. The State DOTs would establish 2-year
targets as the condition/performance anticipated at a midpoint, which
would be indicated by the latest measured condition/performance data
through the midpoint of the performance period (December 31, 2017, for
the first performance period). Similarly, the State DOTs would
establish 4-year targets as the condition/performance anticipated at
the end of a performance period that would be indicated by the latest
measured condition/performance data through the end of the performance
period (December 31, 2019, for the first performance period). It is
important to note that the frequency of data collection cycle depends
on the individual measure. For example, the Interstate System pavement
condition measures provided in Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and (2) would
require a data collection frequency of 1 year as specified in Sec.
490.309(b)(1). Conversely, non-Interstate NHS condition measures,
provided in Sec. 490.307(a)(3) and (4), respectively, would require a
data collection frequency of 2 years as specified in Sec.
490.309(b)(2).
Data collection frequency requirements are defined in the Data
Requirement sections for each measure in the relevant subparts. This
proposed timeline is intended to: (1) Satisfy the first State DOT
biennial performance report due on October 1, 2016, as described in the
discussion on Sec. 490.107; (2) accommodate data collection cycles;
and (3) minimize the time lag between the end/midpoint of a performance
period and the following biennial performance reporting date, as
described in the discussion sections in Sec. Sec. 490.107 and 490.109.
Baseline condition and target establishment for subsequent performance
periods would follow a similar timeline as the first performance
period. The proposed 2-year and 4-year targets are timed so that the
targets are on the same cycle as the biennial report under 23 U.S.C.
150(e), and are also necessary for FHWA to determine the significant
progress for NHPP measures as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). The
FHWA must make this determination every 2 years, after a State DOT
submits each biennial report.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(e)(5) that State DOTs report
their established targets (2-year and 4-year) and progress toward
achieving their targets in the biennial performance report required per
23 U.S.C. 150(e) as specified in Sec. 490.107. As discussed in Sec.
490.105(e)(2), State DOT coordination with relevant MPOs would be
required for selection of targets. Thus, FHWA proposes that the State
DOTs would be able to provide relevant MPOs' targets to FHWA, upon
request, each time the relevant MPOs establish or adjust MPO targets,
described in Sec. 490.105(f).
The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs would need to consider many
factors in establishing targets that could impact progress such as
uncertainties in funding, changing priorities, and external factors
(see Sec. 490.109(e)(4)) outside the control of the State DOTs. Thus,
FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(e)(6) that State DOTs may adjust their
established 4-year targets when they submit their State Biennial
Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance period
(i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in Sec.
490.107(b)(2)). This target adjustment allowance would be limited to
this specific report and not allowed at any other time during the
performance period. The FHWA feels that this frequency of adjustment
allows a State DOT to address changes they could not have foreseen in
the initial establishment of 4-year targets while still maintaining a
sufficient level of control in the administrative procedure necessary
to carry out these program requirements in an equitable manner. For
example, the 4-year target established in 2016 (the 1st State Biennial
Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1) may be adjusted in 2018
(2nd State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1). The
State DOT would report and justify this adjusted target in the second
State Biennial Performance Report due on October 2018 (i.e., Mid
Performance Period Progress Report). The details of reporting
requirements for adjusting a target are discussed in Sec.
490.107(b)(2).
In Sec. 490.105(e)(7), FHWA proposes that State DOTs are not
required to establish their 2-year targets in the beginning of the
first performance period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial Performance
Report illustrated in Figure 1) for the Interstate System pavement
condition measures, provided in Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and (2). As
proposed in the Sec. 490.105(e)(4) discussion, the first performance
period baseline condition/performance data would need to be collected
prior to the start of the performance period for establishing targets.
However, FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs may not be able to meet
all data requirements in Sec. 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the
first proposed performance period for the Interstate System pavement
condition measure. Thus, FHWA proposes that for the first performance
period, State DOTs would only be required to establish their 4-year
targets in the beginning of the first performance period (i.e., the 1st
State Biennial Performance Report in 2016 illustrated in Figure 1) for
the Interstate System pavement condition measures. If necessary, the
State DOTs would adjust their established 4-year targets at the
midpoint of the first performance period (i.e., the 2nd State Biennial
Performance Report in 2018 illustrated in Figure 1) as described in
Sec. 490.105(e)(6).
Similar considerations should be made regarding baseline
conditions/performance. For those State DOTs who may not be able to
collect data required in Sec. 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the
first proposed performance period, FHWA proposes that such State DOTs
would not be required to establish baseline condition/performance in
the 1st State Biennial Performance Report in 2016, but would update
baseline condition/performance with the 2-year condition/performance at
the midpoint (2nd State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in
Figure 1) in 2018. Also, at the midpoint of the first performance
period, FHWA would determine the State DOT's 2-year targets for the
Interstate System pavement condition measures as ``progress not
determined'' for the 2-year significant progress determination as
discussed in Sec. 490.109(e)(3).
In Sec. 490.105(f) FHWA proposes MPO requirements for the
establishment of targets for all measures identified in Sec.
490.105(c). These requirements are being proposed to implement the 23
U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B) target establishment provisions in a manner that
provides for a level of consistency necessary to evaluate and report
progress at an MPO and the national level while providing for a degree
of flexibility to support metropolitan planning needs. The FHWA also
attempted to develop these target establishment requirements so that
they could be met by all MPOs, recognizing that MPOs currently vary in
capability, resource availability, and ability to establish performance
targets.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C), FHWA proposes in Sec.
490.105(f)(1) that each MPO would establish 4-year targets no later
than 180 days after the relevant State DOT establishes its targets,
described in the discussion of Sec. 490.105(e)(1). The FHWA recognizes
the burden on MPOs, regardless of size, to establish targets. In
addition, MPOs are not directly subject to the requirement to evaluate
the progress toward achieving NHPP targets. As a result, FHWA proposes
in this section that MPOs would not be required to
[[Page 345]]
establish 2-year targets, which are required of State DOTs under Sec.
409.105(d)(4). Thus, in case of the first performance period, FHWA
anticipates that the State DOTs would establish targets for the
measures listed in Sec. 490.105(c) prior to the first State DOT
biennial performance report, and the MPOs would establish targets no
later than 180 days thereafter. The timeline for target establishment
for State DOTs is illustrated in Figure 1 in the discussion of Sec.
490.105(e)(4). If the rule is effective on or after September 30, 2015,
MPOs may not have the opportunity to establish their own targets in
time for States to consider those MPO targets when submitting the 1st
Baseline Performance Period Report. The MPOs would be required to
establish targets for all applicable measures.
Similar to the requirement for State DOTs, pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(f)(2) that MPOs
coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) to establish consistent targets,
to the maximum extent practicable. This would be done in accordance
with 23 CFR part 450.
As part of the MPO-State DOT coordination in establishing State DOT
and MPO targets described in the discussion of Sec. 490.105(e)(2) and
(f)(2), FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(f)(3) that the MPOs establish
targets with a 4-year performance period identical to the State DOT's
performance periods discussed in the Section-by-Section for Sec. Sec.
490.101 and 490.105(e)(4). It is important to emphasize that
established MPO targets (4-year target) must be considered as interim
conditions/performance levels that lead toward the accomplishment of
longer-term performance expectations in the longer-term performance
expectations in the MPO's Metropolitan Transportation Plan \49\ and
relevant State DOT NHS asset management plans.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i).
\50\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA recognizes the burden on the MPOs to establish their own
performance targets. Consequently, as proposed, the MPOs would have the
flexibility to establish their targets using one of two options. The
FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(f)(4) that MPOs would establish targets,
specific to the metropolitan planning area, by either: (1) Agreeing to
plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the
accomplishment of the relevant State DOT targets, or (2) committing to
quantifiable targets for their metropolitan planning area. This
proposal would give MPOs two options to establish targets. The MPOs
could establish their own quantifiable targets. Alternatively,
recognizing that the resource level and capability of some MPOs to
reliably predict performance outcomes varies across the country, FHWA
is proposing an approach that would allow MPOs that did not want to
establish their own quantifiable target to establish targets by
supporting the State DOT targets for performance. The MPOs would do
this through their investment decisionmaking process. Regardless of
which option MPOs use to establish targets, FHWA recognizes that the
MPOs may need to work with relevant State DOTs to coordinate, plan, and
program projects for their planning area.
As stated in the Sec. 490.105(e)(6) discussion, State DOTs may
adjust their established 4-year targets when they submit their State
Biennial Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance
period (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in
Sec. 490.107(b)(2)). The MPOs are required to establish targets 180
days after the date on which the relevant State DOT(s) establishes
their targets, per the MPO target establishment requirements specified
in 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT adjusts a target, as allowed
under the proposed Sec. Sec. 490.105(e)(6) and 490.107(b)(2), any
relevant MPOs would be required to also re-establish targets for the
same measures within 180 days. However, FHWA is proposing that the MPO
only be required to re-establish the target if the MPO had originally
elected to establish a target supporting the State DOT target for that
measure. In that case the adjusted State target could directly impact
an MPO's investment decisionmaking. Specifically, FHWA proposes in
Sec. 490.105(f)(7) that if a State DOT adjusts their 4-year target in
the State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report and the MPO
established the relevant target by supporting the State DOT target as
allowed under Sec. 490.105(f)(4), then the MPO would be required,
within 180 days, to report to the State DOT if they either: (1) Agree
to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the
accomplishment of State DOT adjusted target, or (2) commit to a new
quantifiable 4-year target.
As with State DOTs, FHWA recognizes that MPOs would need to
consider many factors in establishing targets, such as uncertainties in
funding, changing priorities, and external factors outside the control
of the MPO. Thus, FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(f)(8) that MPOs may
adjust their established 4-year target in a manner that is consistent
with agreed upon terms documented in the relevant Metropolitan Planning
Agreement. The FHWA recognizes that for many MPOs the establishment of
targets, especially for the first performance period, would be new and
challenging and that there may be a need to revisit targets during the
4-year performance period. The FHWA requires State DOTs and MPOs to
coordinate with each other throughout the performance period with
respect to any target adjustments so their targets are consistent to
the maximum extent practicable.
In Sec. 490.105(f)(9), FHWA proposes that the method by which MPOs
would report their established baseline condition/performance, targets,
and progress toward achieving targets would be as specified in Sec.
490.107(c). The FHWA further proposes in 490.105(f)(9) that the State
would be able to provide MPO targets to FHWA on request after targets
are established or adjusted by MPOs within the State. The FHWA believes
that, through the coordination between a State DOT and relevant MPOs,
the reporting on MPO progress can be shared between these two entities.
However, FHWA expects to be able to request from a State DOT the MPO
targets and reports on progress, as needed, to better understand
performance expectations and outcomes in urbanized areas across the
country. The State DOT and MPO would document the target establishment
reporting process in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in accordance
with 23 CFR 450. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to work with multiple
MPOs to agree on a process for reporting that would provide a
sufficient level of consistency to understand performance in urbanized
areas collectively across the State.
Discussion of Sec. 490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e), State DOTs are required to submit
reports on performance targets and progress in achieving established
targets to FHWA not later than October 1, 2016, and every 2 years
thereafter. The FHWA evaluated whether there were any existing reports
that could be used to meet these 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting
requirements. For the non-HSIP related measures, FHWA determined that
none of the existing reporting requirements met the statutorily
required timing. In addition, none of the existing reports currently
provide the consistency needed to implement performance management
nationally. For these reasons, FHWA proposes a new biennial report to
meet the statutory requirements.
[[Page 346]]
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107 for State DOT performance
reporting to be used--
In the determination of significant progress toward
achieving NHPP targets;
to provide some of the information needed for FHWA to
report to Congress on the performance-based planning process evaluation
of each State DOT as required by 23 U.S.C. 135(h);
to understand performance needs, expectations, and
progress at a State, regional, and national level; and
to provide for transparency by communicating the content
of the report to the public on an externally facing Web site in a
downloadable format.
In Sec. 490.107(a), FHWA proposes that all performance targets
described in Sec. 490.105 would be subject to biennial performance
reporting in this section. However, reporting on performance targets
for carrying out the HSIP would be in accordance with Sec. 490.213. In
the National Performance Measures; HSIP NPRM, FHWA proposed a 1
calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target
establishment, and reporting. As discussed in Sec. 490.101 of that
NPRM, a 1-year period was proposed to align the safety measures with
the requirements for the common measures reported as a requirement of
23 U.S.C. 402. The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs use an electronic
template to deliver the report proposed in this section. The FHWA
intends to provide additional guidance regarding the template which
will include fields to capture all of the information that would be
required to be reported under this rulemaking.
For consistent State DOT and FHWA reporting, FHWA proposed a 4-year
performance period in Sec. 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA recognizes the need
for uniform data collection timing in order to ensure consistency in
reporting and repeatable target establishment and progress evaluation
processes. Thus, in subsequent sections, FHWA proposes the timing of
data collection based on the specified performance periods, described
in Sec. 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA proposes that data collection
requirements for the established measures support the reporting
requirements in this section and be in accordance with the respective
Data Requirements section (e.g., Sec. 490.309) for each measure. To
ensure consistency in reporting, FHWA proposes that the reported
baseline condition/performance be derived from the latest data
collected through the begin date of a performance period, the reported
actual 2-year condition/performance would be derived from the latest
data collected through the midpoint of a performance period, and the
reported actual 4-year condition/performance would be derived from the
latest data collected through the end date of a performance period.
This is illustrated in Figure 1 in the discussion for Sec.
490.105(e)(4).
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b) that State DOTs submit to
FHWA three types of Biennial Performance Reports: Baseline Performance
Period Report, Mid Performance Period Progress Report and Full
Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes to make a
distinction between the three reports to emphasize the differences in
content while aligning the reporting process to the proposed target
establishment, progress evaluation, and other performance reporting
requirements. Figure 2 is a timeline of the proposed reporting timeline
for the Biennial Performance Reports. The proposed requirements
identify three distinct biennial reports (baseline, mid and full) and
State DOTs will be expected to provide information for at least one of
these reports every 2 years. Because these reports would be required
for consecutive 4-year performance periods, the information provided in
the Full Performance Period Report would be provided at the same time
and may include some of the same information as the Baseline
Performance Period Report for the next performance period. As discussed
previously, FHWA is proposing to provide for an electronic template
that State DOTs would use to capture the information required in each
of the three reports discussed in Sec. 490.107(b). It is envisioned
that this electronic template would provide the State DOT all of the
relevant fields for the information that would be due at the
corresponding 2-year point. This approach would allow State DOTs to
provide all of the required baseline and progress reporting information
at one time. The proposed regulations identify three distinct reports
to clarify the purpose and timing of information that would be required
to be reported every 2 years.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 347]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.004
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Baseline Performance
Period Report in Sec. 490.107(b)(1), where the State DOTs would be
required to submit a Baseline Performance Period Report no later than
October 1 of the first year of a performance period. The FHWA is
proposing that the first performance period would begin on January 1,
2016, which would require State DOTs to submit their first Baseline
Performance Period Report no later than October 1, 2016. Subsequent
Baseline Performance Period Reports would be due no later than October
1 every 4 years thereafter.
The required contents for the Baseline Performance Period Report
are discussed in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii). The FHWA is proposing that
the Baseline Performance Period Report would be the official source of
the non-safety targets established by the State DOT. To document the
established targets, FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A) that
State DOTs would report both their established 2-year and 4-year
targets for each measure listed in 490.105(c) for the current
performance period. Considering the proposed phase-in of new
requirements for Interstate System pavement condition measures
discussed in Sec. 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not be required to
report 2-year targets for Interstate System pavement measures in the
Baseline Performance Period Report
[[Page 348]]
for the first performance period. If a State DOT elects to establish
additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas, as described
in Sec. 490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would be required to include
these targets (both 2-year target and 4-year target) in the report.
Although FHWA would not approve the State DOT submitted targets, a
discussion of the basis for each established target would be included
in the Baseline Performance Period Report. The FHWA believes that this
discussion is needed to explain the State DOT's basis for the selection
of a target. The FHWA intends to publish the State DOT established
targets on a publicly available Web site with the target basis
discussion. It is important to note that, although other MAP-21
required plans and reports may discuss and use targets, FHWA is
proposing that only the targets reported in the Baseline Performance
Period Report and the HSIP report would be viewed by FHWA as those that
are established by the State DOT to meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C.
150(d).
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B) that the State DOTs
report baseline condition/performance associated with each target
reported to represent the latest condition/performance data collected
through the begin date of a performance period. Considering the first
performance period is proposed to begin on January 1, 2016, the
baseline condition/performance for this performance period would be the
most recent condition/performance that represents actual condition/
performance through December 31, 2015. Considering the proposed phase-
in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement condition
measures discussed in Sec. 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not be
required to report baseline conditions for Interstate System pavement
measures in the Baseline Performance Period Report for the first
performance period. If a State DOT elects to establish additional
targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas as described in Sec.
490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would report baseline condition/
performance that represent these areas in addition to the statewide
baseline condition/performance. As an example, for the Percentage of
pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition measure (in Sec.
490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Good condition (Sec. 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth
of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a baseline condition/performance
for this measure would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate
System in Good condition expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a
hypothetical example, baseline condition/performance would be 37.7% for
the proposed measure Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System
in Good condition.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs
would be required to also include a discussion in the Baseline
Performance Period Report, to the maximum extent practical, of how the
established 2-year and 4-year targets support longer term performance
expectations in other performance-related plans, such as the State
asset management plan and the long-range statewide transportation plan.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) that State DOTs
would be required to report the geographic boundaries and Decennial
Census population data used to determine target scope, IRI rating and
establish any additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas.
Similarly, in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that State DOTs
would be required to report the NHS network limits used for target
establishment. The State DOT would report both the urbanized area
boundaries and NHS limits used for target establishment by identifying
the corresponding data inventory year of the HPMS that includes this
information. Using HPMS data items for the data year identified by the
State, FHWA would be able to extract pavement and bridge condition data
for the appropriate NHS and/or urbanized area the State DOT used to
establish targets. The FHWA would use this information in making its
progress determinations in future years. It is the State's
responsibility to ensure that the data entered into HPMS reflects the
information that is used for target establishment.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 349]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.005
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report in Sec. 490.107(b)(2). In Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(i), FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would be required to submit a Mid Performance
Period Progress Report no later than October 1 of the third year of a
performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the first performance
period would begin on January 1, 2016, which would require State DOTs
to submit their first Mid Performance Period Progress Report no later
than October 1, 2018, and subsequent Mid Performance Period Progress
Reports would be due no later than October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
In Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents for
the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. In Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required
to report 2-year condition/performance in each Mid Performance Period
Progress Report. As exhibited in Figure 3, FHWA proposes that the 2-
year condition/performance would be reported to represent the actual
condition/performance derived from the latest measured condition/
performance through the midpoint of a performance period. Considering
the first performance period is proposed to begin
[[Page 350]]
on January 1, 2016, 2-year condition/performance for this performance
period would be the most recent conditions/performance that represents
actual conditions/performance through December 31, 2017 (illustrated in
Figure 3).
Considering the proposed phase-in of new requirements for
Interstate System pavement condition measures discussed in Sec.
490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would be required to report the 2-year actual
Interstate System pavement conditions as the baseline condition by
updating their Baseline Performance Period Report for the first
performance period.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) that State DOTs
would also include a discussion of progress made toward the achievement
of 2-year targets established for the current performance period. In
this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 2-year
condition/performance with the 2-year targets that were established for
the performance period. For example, in the first Mid Performance
Period Progress Report in 2018, a State would compare the actual
condition/performance through 2017 with the 2-year targets established
for the first performance period and discuss why targets were or were
not achieved. This discussion could describe accomplishments achieved,
planned activities, circumstances that led to actual conditions/
performance, or any other information that State DOT feel would
adequately explain progress. Although this explanation would not be
used in the determination of significant progress, as described in
Sec. 490.109, this information would be made available to the public
to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes
achieved. As an example, the Percentage of pavements of the Interstate
System in Good condition measure (in Sec. 490.307(a)(1)), would be a
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition
(Sec. 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA
proposes that a 2-year condition/performance for this measure would be
a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition
expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 2-year
condition/performance would be 39.2% for the proposed measure
Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) that, in each Mid
Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussion
on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State
asset management plan for the NHS. The FHWA is reserving Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(D). The statutory requirement for State DOTs to
include a discussion on ways in which State DOTs are addressing
congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the
National Freight Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the third
Performance Measure NPRM. This content is required as part of the
report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4). The FHWA recognizes that the
Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the first performance period
may be impacted by the timing of the implementation of the new NHS
asset management plan requirement. The FHWA intends to issue further
guidance if the timing of this plan would impact a State DOT's ability
to comply with the requirements proposed in Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C).
As discussed in Sec. 490.105(e)(6), FHWA recognizes the challenges
that State DOTs may face in target establishment and, as a result,
proposes to allow State DOTs to adjust their 4-year targets. The FHWA
is proposing in Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(E) that State DOTs would report
any adjustments to their 4-year targets in the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report. The FHWA proposes that this target adjustment
allowance would be limited to this specific report and not allowed
prior to, or following, the submittal of the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report. For example, if a State DOT elects to adjust a 4-year
target established in its first Baseline Performance Period Report in
2016, the State DOT would only be able to adjust the 4-year target in
its Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2018. In addition to
reporting the adjusted 4-year target, the State DOT would be required
to include a discussion on the basis for the adjusted 4-year target(s)
for the performance period and a discussion on how the adjusted targets
support expectations documented in longer range plans, such as the
State asset management plan and the long-range statewide transportation
plan.
In Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs
would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the
2-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period
Report that would had been established for the NHPP measures specified
in Sec. 490.105(c)(1) through (3).\51\ Additionally, State DOTs would
provide information to discuss how the actual 2-year condition/
performance levels compare with the NHPP targets. Although this
discussion would not be used in the determination of significant
progress for the NHPP, this information would be made available to the
public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual
outcomes related to the NHPP. For example, the State DOT may use this
discussion to explain how they effectively and efficiently delivered a
program designed to achieve 2-year targets, how this may have resulted
in actual condition/performance improvements for the NHPP, and how the
State DOT would deliver a program to make significant progress toward
achieving 4-year targets for the NHPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The performance measures for performance of the Interstate
System and performance of the non-Interstate NHS will be proposed in
the third performance measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were
outside of their control that impacted its ability to make significant
progress for the NHPP 2-year targets. This discussion would be used by
FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration of
extenuating circumstances discussed in Sec. 490.109(e)(4).
In Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(H), FHWA proposes that if FHWA
determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward
the achievement of NHPP targets, in two consecutive biennial FHWA
determinations, then the State DOT would include a description of the
actions they will undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if either of the Interstate
pavement condition targets did not make significant progress in
previous two determinations (determinations at midpoint and the end of
previous performance period), then the State DOT would include in the
current Mid Performance Period Report a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to improve conditions with respect to both
Interstate pavement condition measure. If FHWA determines that the
State DOT has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does
not need to include such description in the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.007
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Full Performance Period
Progress Report in Sec. 490.107(b)(3). In Sec. 490.107 (b)(3)(i),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs be required to submit a Full Performance
Period Progress Report no later than October 1 of the first year
following the completion of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing
that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2016, which
would require State DOTs to submit their first Full Performance Period
Progress Report no later than October 1, 2020, and subsequent Full
Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no later than October
1 every 4 years thereafter.
In Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents for
Full Performance Period Progress Report.
In Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
be required to report 4-year condition/performance in each Full
Performance Period Progress Report. As exhibited in Figure 4, FHWA
proposes that the 4-year condition/performance be reported
[[Page 352]]
to represent the actual condition/performance derived from the latest
measured condition/performance through the end of a performance period.
Considering the first performance period is proposed to begin on
January 1, 2016, the 4-year condition/performance for this performance
period would be the most recent conditions/performance that represents
actual conditions/performance through December 31, 2019 (illustrated in
Figure 4). As an example, the Percentage of pavements of the Interstate
System in Good condition measure (in Sec. 490.307(a)(1)), would be a
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition
(Sec. 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA
proposes that a 4-year condition/performance for this measure would be
a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition
expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 4-year
condition/performance would be 37.7% for the proposed measure
Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B), that the State
DOTs would also include a discussion of progress made toward the
achievement of 4-year targets established for the relevant performance
period. In this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 4-
year condition/performance with the 4-year targets that were
established for the performance period. For example, in the first Full
Performance Period Progress Report in 2020, a State would compare the
actual condition/performance through 2019 with the 4-year targets
established for the first performance period and discuss why targets
were or were not achieved. This discussion could describe
accomplishments achieved, planned activities, circumstances that led to
actual conditions/performance or any other information that State DOT
would feel would adequately explain progress. Although this explanation
would not be used in the determination of significant progress, this
information would be made available to the public to provide an
opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes achieved.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) that, in each Full
Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussion
on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State
asset management plan for the NHS. The FHWA is reserving Sec.
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(D). The statutory requirement for State DOTs to
include a discussion on ways in which State DOTs are addressing
congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the
National Freight Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the third
Performance Measure NPRM. This content is required as part of the
report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4).
In Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs
would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the
4-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period
Report, or adjusted in the current Mid Performance Period Progress
Report, that would had been established for the NHPP measures specified
in Sec. 490.105(c)(1) through (3).\52\ Additionally, State DOTs would
provide information to discuss how the actual 4-year condition/
performance levels compare with the NHPP targets. Although this
discussion would not be used in the determination of significant
progress for the NHPP, this information would be made available to the
public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual
outcomes related to the NHPP. For example, the State DOT may use this
discussion to explain how they effectively and efficiently delivered a
program designed to achieve targets and how this may have resulted in
actual condition/performance improvements for the NHPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The performance measures for performance of the Interstate
System and performance of the non-Interstate NHS will be proposed in
the third performance measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were
outside of their control that impacted its ability to make significant
progress for the NHPP 4-year targets. This discussion would be used by
FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration of
extenuating circumstances discussed in Sec. 490.109(e)(5).
In Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA proposes that if FHWA
determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward
the achievement NHPP targets, in two consecutive biennial FHWA
determinations, then the State DOT would include a description of the
actions they would undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if either of the NHS bridge
condition targets did not make significant progress in previous two
determinations (determination at the end of previous performance period
and determination at the midpoint of current performance period), then
the State DOT would include in the current Full Performance Period
Report) a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake to
improve conditions with respect to both Interstate pavement condition
measures. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has achieved
significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to include such
description in the Full Performance Period Progress Report.
The FHWA proposes, in Sec. 490.107(c), that MPOs document the
manner in which they report their established targets within the
Metropolitan Planning Agreement required by 23 CFR 450. The MPOs would
report their established targets to the relevant State DOTs in a manner
that is agreed upon by both parties and documented in the Metropolitan
Planning Agreement. The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.105(e)(5), that MPOs
would report targets to the State DOT in a manner that would allow the
State DOT to provide FHWA, upon request, all of the targets established
by relevant MPOs. The FHWA also proposes that MPOs would report
baseline condition/performance, and progress toward the achievement of
their targets, in the system performance report in the metropolitan
transportation plan, in accordance with 23 CFR 450.
Discussion of Sec. 490.109 Assessing Significant Progress Towards
Achieving the Performance Targets for the NHPP
In Sec. 490.109, FHWA proposes the method by which FHWA would
determine if a State DOT has achieved or is making significant progress
toward the achievement of their NHPP performance targets as required by
23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). Although this determination could directly impact
State DOTs, MPOs could also be indirectly impacted as a result of the
link between metropolitan and statewide planning and programming
decisionmaking. This rulemaking discusses the approach that would be
taken by FHWA to assess State DOT performance progress, but does not
include a discussion on the method that may be used by FHWA to assess
the 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. (RIN 2125-
AF52).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at 79 FR 31784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA recognizes the risks associated with target establishment
and that there may be factors outside of a State DOT's control that
could impact its ability to achieve a target. A number
[[Page 353]]
of factors were raised as part of the performance management
stakeholder outreach sessions regarding target establishment and
progress assessment, including: 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
with balancing local and national objectives. The FHWA considered these
risks and factors in its evaluation of different approaches to
implement this provision.
The FHWA recognizes that the State DOTs and MPOs have to consider
multiple performance priorities in making investment trade-off
decisions and that there are challenges with balancing local and
national objectives. During outreach, stakeholders raised a number of
concerns regarding progress assessment, including: \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ AASHTO (2013), SCOPM Task Force Findings on MAP-21
Performance Measure Target-Setting. https://scopm.transportation.org/Documents/SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20Findings%20on%20Performance%20Measure%20Target-Setting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The desire to foster balanced and sound decisions rather
than focusing on achieving one target at the expense of another;
the desire to assess progress using quantitative and
qualitative input; and
the desire to avoid unachievable targets.
Thus, FHWA plans to implement an approach that balances the
uncertainty facing State DOTs in predicting future performance with the
need to provide for a fair and consistent process to determine
compliance. The approach being proposed by FHWA is based on the
following principles:
Focus the Federal-aid highway program on the MAP-21
national goals in 23 U.S.C. 150(b); and
recognize that State DOTs need to consider fiscal
constraints in their target establishment.
Because targets would be established for an entire system, FHWA
acknowledges that State DOTs may make small incremental changes within
that system that would not necessarily appear in a quantitative
assessment. In some instances, even a modest increase in improvement
when evaluating on a system-wide basis, would constitute significant
progress. Accordingly, FHWA proposes that for each NHPP target,
progress toward the achievement of the target would be considered
``significant'' when either of the following occur: The actual
condition/performance level is equal to or better than the State DOT
established target; or actual condition/performance is better than the
State DOT identified baseline condition/performance. The FHWA believes
that any improvement over the baseline, which represents a 0.1%
improvement over 4 years, should be viewed as significant progress
considering the fiscal short falls and financial uncertainties many
State DOTs are faced with today. Although a change of 0.1% may appear
insignificant, this degree of improvement to a pavement or bridge
system is difficult to achieve. In many States this level of change
would require improvements to hundreds, if not thousands, of miles of
pavements and/or bridges. The FHWA reviewed the extent to which State
DOTs have been able to actually change system conditions of their
pavements and bridges in recent years to validate this view of
significant progress. This review supported FHWA's belief that any
improvement should be considered significant as many State DOTs have
seen minimal or no improvements in the condition of their pavement and
bridge networks in recent years. This is the case even with the influx
of funding State DOTs were able to utilize through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. For these reasons, FHWA believes
that any improvement over the baseline should be viewed as significant
progress.
The FHWA believes that State DOTs would, through a transparent and
public process, want to establish or adjust targets that strive to
improve the overall performance of the Interstate and National Highway
systems. For this reason, FHWA did not want to consider an approach to
determine significant progress that would be difficult to meet as it
could discourage the establishment of ``reach'' targets due to the
perceived unmanageable risks that would need to be assumed by State
DOTs. The FHWA feels that the progress assessment approach proposed in
this NPRM, which considers improvement from baseline conditions to be
significant, would not discourage State DOTs from establishing targets
to improve the overall conditions of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS.
The FHWA therefore proposes a three-step process to determine if a
State DOT has made significant progress toward the achievement of their
NHPP targets. This proposed process would be completed by FHWA each
time the State DOT submits their Mid Performance Period Progress Report
and their Full Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes
that the significant progress determination process for two consecutive
reporting periods would be done on an ongoing basis and would not
restart at the beginning of each performance period.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ For example, assuming a determination would be made in
2021, that period-end determination for 1st performance period would
be based on information submitted in the 2016 Mid Performance Period
Report and the 2020 Full Performance Period Report. The next
determination made in 2023 would be based on information submitted
in the 2020 Baseline Performance Period Report/2022 Mid Performance
Period Progress Report Performance Period Report and the 2020 Full
Performance Period Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: The State DOT would evaluate and report the
progress they have made toward the achievement of each target.\56\ This
evaluation would be documented in the discussion of the progress
achieved since the most recent report. The State DOT would document in
their Biennial Performance Reports any extenuating circumstances
outside their control they may have impacted their ability to achieve
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The performance measures for performance of the Interstate
System and performance of the non-Interstate NHS will be proposed in
the third performance measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: The FHWA would review the completeness of the
content provided in their Biennial Performance Reports and would
determine if any documented extenuating circumstances would be
considered. State DOTs would provide any additional information to
FHWA, upon request, if the report is incomplete.
Step 3: The FHWA would determine if the State DOT has made
significant progress for each target using the following sources:
[cir] Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for
pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(1) and
(2);
[cir] Data contained in the NBI for targets established for bridge
condition measures, as specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(3); and
In Sec. 490.109(a), FHWA proposes that it would determine whether
the State DOT has achieved or has made significant progress toward
achieving each of the State DOT targets for the NHPP measures
separately.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.109(b) that FHWA would determine
whether a State DOT has or has not made significant progress toward the
achievement of NHPP targets at the midpoint and the end of each
performance period.
In Sec. 490.109(c), FHWA proposes that FHWA would determine
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's NHPP
targets after the State
[[Page 354]]
DOT submittal of the Mid Performance Period Progress Report and after
the State DOT submittal of the Full Performance Period Progress Report.
This process, which is described in the discussion of Sec. 490.107(b),
would follow the proposed schedule illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. The
FHWA would make a significant progress determination for the NHPP every
2 years. The FHWA would notify all State DOTs of the outcome of the
determination within a reasonable time and would advise any State DOTs
that would need to add additional information to their next biennial
report (see 450.109(f)). The FHWA intends to post State DOT targets,
actual condition, and progress reports on an externally facing Web
site. This information would provide for greater transparency and allow
the public access to the progress State DOTs have made in achieving
their targets. The FHWA does not intend to post the significant
progress determinations on the Web site but will make this information
available in an electronic format on request.
The FHWA also expects that during a performance period, State DOTs
would routinely monitor leading indicators, such as program delivery
status, to assess if they are on track to make significant progress
toward achievement of a State DOT's NHPP targets. If a State DOT
anticipates it may not make significant progress, it is encouraged to
work with FHWA and seek technical assistance during the performance
period to identify the actions that can be taken to improve progress
toward making significant progress. The FHWA also seeks comment on
whether it should require State DOTs to more frequently (e.g.,
annually) evaluate and report the progress they have made.
The FHWA desires to use national datasets in a consistent manner as
a basis for its determination of a State DOT's significant progress
toward the achievement of NHPP targets. The FHWA is proposing to
determine actual pavement and bridge conditions from the HPMS and NBI,
respectively, in a manner that could be replicated by State DOTs and
others that may have interest in assessing actual pavement and bridge
conditions. Thus, in Sec. 490.109(d), FHWA proposes to use: The HPMS
as the data source to determine actual pavement conditions; the NBI as
the data source to determine actual bridge condition measures; and NHS
limits and urbanized area boundaries identified in the Baseline
Performance Period Report. The data source for performance of the
Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS measures will be proposed
in the third Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures NPRM.
The FHWA is proposing a period of approximately 60 days for
Interstate pavements and bridges and 90 days for non-Interstate NHS
pavements and bridges after the State DOT submits data to the HPMS and
NBI for the State DOT to update the data to address missing or
incorrect data. Considering this time allowance, FHWA is proposing that
specific dates be established to extract data from the HPMS and NBI.
The FHWA would use this data to determine significant progress toward
the achievement of NHPP targets and assess the pavement and bridge
minimum condition. These dates are necessary in order to make
significant progress determinations in a timely manner and to determine
compliance with the minimum condition requirements in sufficient time
to apply any resulting obligation, transfer, or set-aside requirements
by the next fiscal year. The FHWA is proposing the following dates to
extract data from the HPMS and the NBI to determine actual conditions:
June 15--The FHWA is proposing to extract data from the
HPMS and the NBI on this date to determine the actual Interstate System
pavement conditions and NHS bridge conditions. This date is needed to
provide for sufficient time to carry out any penalties resulting from
non-compliance with the minimum condition requirements in 23 U.S.C.
119(f);
August 15--The FHWA is proposing to extract data from the
HPMS on this date to determine the actual non-Interstate NHS pavement
conditions. This date is needed to provide for sufficient time to make
a determination of significant progress for the achievement of NHPP
targets.
In Sec. 490.109(e), FHWA proposes a process for significant
progress determination for each established NHPP target. In paragraph
(e)(1), FHWA proposes that FHWA would assess how the target established
by State DOT compares to the actual condition/performance using the
data/information sources described in Sec. 490.109(d). In paragraph
(e)(2), FHWA proposes that FHWA would determine that a State DOT has
made significant progress for each 2-year or 4-year NHPP target if
either: (i) The actual condition/performance level is better than the
baseline condition/performance reported in the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report; or (ii) the actual condition/performance
level is equal to or better than the established target. For
illustrative purposes, 2-year and 4-year evaluations where improving
targets were established for the first performance period are shown in
Figure 5.
[[Page 355]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.008
The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs have to consider their fiscal
constraints in target establishment and acknowledges that, in some
cases, anticipated condition/performance could be projected to decline
from (or sustain) the baseline condition/performance due to lack of
funding, changing priorities, etc. In these cases State DOTs should
document why they project a decline in condition in their Biennial
Performance Reports as discussed in paragraph Sec.
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). The FHWA proposes that significant progress could
still be made in cases where the established target indicates a decline
from (or sustain) the baseline condition/performance. For the decline/
sustain condition/performance scenario, FHWA proposes that significant
progress is made for a target when actual condition/performance level
is equal to or exceeds the target. For illustrative purposes, 2-year
and 4-year evaluations where declining targets were established for the
first performance period are shown in Figure 6.
[[Page 356]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.009
As discussed in Sec. 490.105(e)(7), FHWA recognizes that some
State DOTs may not be able to collect the data required in Sec.
490.309(b)(1) for the Interstate System pavement condition prior to the
start of the first performance period. Considering this limitation,
FHWA proposed in Sec. 490.109(e)(3) that for the first performance
period, the State DOTs would not be required to report their 2-year
targets and their baseline condition for the Interstate System pavement
condition measures at the beginning of the first performance period.
Consequently, FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.109(e)(3) that progress
towards the achievement of 2-year targets for the Interstate System
pavement condition measures would not be subject to the FHWA
determination under Sec. 490.109(e)(2), even if they elect to collect
the data needed to calculate the Interstate System pavement measures in
the first 2 years of the first performance period.
The FHWA proposes to accomplish this by categorizing the 2-year
targets for the Interstate System pavement condition measures as
``progress not determined,'' which would exclude these targets from the
FHWA determination under Sec. 490.109(e)(2). The FHWA expects that
some State DOTs would adjust their established 4-year targets at the
midpoint of the first performance period because they may have had
limited baseline data available to them when they first established the
target. For the first performance period, FHWA would determine
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's Interstate
System pavement condition targets based on HPMS data extracted on June
15 of the year in which the Full Performance Period Progress Report is
due. The FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs would be able to
establish and report baseline condition and 2-year targets for the
proposed Interstate System pavement condition measures in their first
Baseline Performance Period Report. However, FHWA proposes that the
process established in this section applies to all State DOTs in order
to ensure uniformity in the progress determination process.
In Sec. 490.109(e)(4), FHWA proposes that if a State DOT does not
provide sufficient data and/or information for FHWA to make a
significant progress determination for NHPP target(s), then that State
DOT would be deemed to not have made significant progress made for
those individual NHPP target(s).
If a State DOT encounters extenuating circumstances beyond its
control, the State DOT would document the explanation of the
extenuating circumstances in the biennial performance report. This
explanation would address factors that the State DOT could not have
foreseen and were outside of their control when they established
targets at the beginning of the performance period. If the explanation
is accepted by FHWA, then the associated NHPP target(s) would be
excluded from FHWA determination under Sec. 490.109(e)(2). If the
explanation is not accepted by FHWA, then the State DOT would be deemed
to not have made significant progress for the target. Extenuating
circumstances would include:
Natural or man-made disasters causing delay in NHPP
project delivery, extenuating delay in data collection, and/or damage/
loss of data system;
sudden discontinuation of Federal Government furnished
data due to natural and man-made disasters or lack of funding; and/or
new law or regulation directing State DOTs to change
metric and/or measure calculation.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), in Sec. 490.109(f), FHWA proposes
that if FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant
progress for an NHPP targets in two consecutive FHWA determinations,
then the State DOT
[[Page 357]]
would include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description of
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve all targets in same
measure group. The FHWA proposed the measure groups as follow:
Interstate System pavement condition--both proposed
measures Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good
condition in Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Poor condition in Sec. 490.307(a)(2);
Non-Interstate NHS pavement condition--both proposed
measures Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good
condition in Sec. 490.307(a)(3) and Percentage of pavements of the
non-Interstate NHS in Good condition in Sec. 490.307(a)(4);
NHS bridge condition--both measures Percentage of NHS
bridges in Good condition in Sec. 490.407(c)(1) and Percentage of NHS
bridges in Poor condition in Sec. 490.407(c)(2);
As a general example of this proposed approach, when a State DOT
has not made significant progress for any one of the targets for
Interstate System pavement condition measures, then that State DOT
would include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description of
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve targets for all
Interstate System pavement condition measures.
Tables 2 and 3 illustrate this proposed determination method. Table
2 includes the significant progress determination results in 2019 for
the midpoint 1st performance period and the significant progress
determination in 2021 for the end of the 1st performance period. Table
3 includes the significant progress determination results in 2021 for
the end of the 1st performance period (repeat from Table 2) and the
significant progress determination in 2023 for the midpoint 2nd
performance period. In this example, a State DOT has established
statewide targets, as required, for 2 measures: Percentage of pavements
in Good Condition on the Interstate System and Percentage of pavements
in Poor Condition on the Interstate System.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 358]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.010
[[Page 359]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.011
In Table 2 above, the State DOT has not made significant progress
towards the target for the Percentage of pavements in Good Condition on
the Interstate System measure in two consecutive FHWA determinations.
So the State DOT would include in its next Biennial Performance Report
(i.e. Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2022) a description of
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve for both measures--
the Percentage of pavements in Good Condition on Interstate System and
the Percentage of pavements in Poor Condition on Interstate System
measures.
The FHWA believes that any one of the targets could impact other
targets in the same measure group and FHWA also believes that the State
DOT's descriptions of the actions for all targets in a same measure
group would be more logical and sensible in managing performance of
relevant network (e.g. the entire Interstate System) rather than
isolated description on a subset of network (e.g. pavements in Good
Condition on Interstate System). So, FHWA proposes that a State DOT
would provide a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake
to achieve all targets in the same measure group.
As indicated in the previous discussion in Sec. 490.109, FHWA
would make the significant progress determination each time the State
DOT submits its State DOT Mid Performance Period Progress Report and
its State DOT Full Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA
proposes that the significant progress determination would be done on
an ongoing/rolling basis and would not restart at the beginning of each
performance period. So in this example, 2 consecutive reporting would
also be the significant progress determination results in 2021 for the
end of the 1st performance period (repeat from Table 2) and the
significant progress determination in 2023 for the midpoint 2nd
performance period. Note 4-year condition/performance of the 1st
performance period is the baseline condition/performance of the 2nd
performance period.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 360]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.012
[[Page 361]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.013
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
In Table 3, the State DOT has not made significant progress towards
the Percentage of NHS bridges in Good Condition measure in two
consecutive FHWA determinations. So the State DOT would include in its
next Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Full Performance Period Progress
Report in 2024) a description of the actions the State DOT will
undertake to achieve statewide targets for both measures Percentage of
NHS bridges in Good Condition and Percentage of NHS bridges in Poor
Condition.
Although State DOTs are required to include a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve targets in its next
Biennial Performance Report to meet the requirement in 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7) and paragraph (f) of this section, State DOTs should not wait
until next Biennial Performance Report in taking necessary actions. As
discussed in Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) and (b)(3)(ii)(E), all State
DOTs are required to discuss the progress they have made toward the
achievement of targets established for the NHPP measures in each of
their Biennial Performance Report. Thus, FHWA expects State DOTs would
routinely monitor leading indicators, such as program delivery status
and measured data, to assess if they are on track to make significant
progress for a State DOT's NHPP targets and expects State DOTs to be
aware of their progress prior to the time of each Biennial Performance
Report. As discussed in Sec. 490.109(c), if a State DOT anticipates it
may not make significant progress, they are encouraged to work with
FHWA and seek technical assistance during the performance period to
identify the actions that can be taken in a timely manner to improve
progress toward making significant progress for the targets reported in
subsequent Biennial Performance Reports. Thus, in Sec. 490.109(f)(6),
FHWA proposes that the State DOT should, within 6 months of the
significant progress determination and in a format that can be made
available to FHWA, document the information specified in this section
to ensure actions are being taken to improve progress.
Discussion of Sec. 490.111 Incorporation by Reference
In Sec. 490.111, FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference a
number of items. First, FHWA proposes to incorporate the proposed HPMS
Field Manual to codify the data requirements for measures, as discussed
throughout Part 490, and to be consistent with HPMS reporting
requirements. The proposed HPMS Field Manual includes detailed
information on technical procedures to be used as reference by those
collecting and reporting data for the proposed measures. The proposed
HPMS Field Manual is included in the docket.
The FHWA also proposes to incorporate by reference 10 AASHTO
standards to codify the method and/or the device used to collect data
for the metrics (i.e., IRI, Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting).
These AASHTO Standards were developed and adopted
[[Page 362]]
by the AASHTO member States as appropriate national standard practices
for collecting and reporting pavement and other condition data. The
incorporated standards are included in the ``Standard Specifications
for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 34th
Edition and AASHTO Provisional Standards, 2014 Edition,'' which is
available for purchase at: https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=2223. The FHWA believes that the entities most
affected by this proposed regulation, namely State DOTs and MPOs,
already own a copy of the incorporated AASHTO standards.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference the ``Recording
and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the
Nation's Bridges,'' which contains all of the NBI Items listed in
subpart D. This guide is intended for use by States, Federal agencies,
Tribal governments and other bridge owners in recording and coding the
data items that comprise the NBI. The Guide is available at no charge
on the FHWA Web site at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm, and is
also included in the docket.
A copy of all of the incorporated documents outlined above will be
on file and available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration. These documents will also be available for
viewing at the Department of Transportation Library.
B. Section-by-Section Discussion for Subpart C: NHPP Measures for
Assessing Pavement Condition
Discussion of Sec. 490.301 Purpose
This section describes the general purpose of the proposed subpart:
To implement certain portions of 23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require FHWA to
establish performance measures to assess the condition of pavement on
the Interstate System, performance measures to assess the condition of
pavement on the non-Interstate NHS, minimum levels for the condition of
pavement on the Interstate System, pavement data elements that are
necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a
performance-based approach, and consider regional differences in
establishing the minimum levels for pavement condition.
Discussion of Sec. 490.303 Applicability
The FHWA proposes to specify pavement condition performance
measures that would be applicable to all mainline Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS pavements covered under 23 U.S.C. 119 regardless of
ownership or maintenance responsibility. Specifically excluded are
ramps, shoulders, turn lanes, crossovers, rest areas, and non-normally
traveled pavement surfaces that are not part of the roadway normally
traveled by through traffic.
Discussion of Sec. 490.305 Definitions
The FHWA proposes a set of definitions that are specific only to
this subpart. The FHWA proposes to include definitions for three types
of pavements: ``asphalt pavements,'' ``Continuously Reinforced Concrete
Pavement (CRCP),'' and ``Jointed Concrete Pavements,'' because data
requirements and metrics for the proposed measure are dependent on
surface type of pavement. The FHWA recognizes some pavements are
composite pavements that consist of multiple pavement types, such as an
asphalt pavement overlay over an older jointed concrete pavement. The
FHWA believes it is sufficient for the purpose of this rulemaking and
for improved consistency to consider the pavement type of any composite
pavement as the pavement type that exists in the surface of the
structure (or the top-most layer).
The need for consistent definitions was reinforced by a national
study on pavement roughness \62\ and a regional study on highway
infrastructure health.\63\ These studies found that both measured
roughness and distress data are not consistently collected and reported
by State DOTs across the country. The FHWA is addressing this need by
proposing definitions for cracking, faulting, IRI, punchout, and
rutting.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ AASHTO (2008). Comparative Performance Measurement:
Pavement Smoothness, NCHRP 20-24(37B). https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/20-24(37)B_FR.pdf.
\63\ FHWA (2012). Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway
Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report, FHWA-HIF-12-049. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/hif12049.pdf.
\64\ More information about the defined terms associated with
pavement ``cracking,'' ``faulting,'' ``punchouts,'' ``rutting,''
etc., can be found in the ``Distress Identification Manual''
published by FHWA. See FHWA 2003, Publication No. FHWA-RD-03-031
``Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement
Performance Program.'' https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/reports/03031/03031.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to define ``Cracking'' as a metric that would be
used for determining pavement condition and a definition for ``Cracking
Percent'' that would be used to express the percentage of cracking
exhibiting in a pavement surface. The FHWA proposes to define
``Cracking Percent'' separately for each type of pavement.
The FHWA proposes to define ``Faulting'' and ``International
Roughness Index'' to avoid confusion with any other uses of these terms
as these pavement conditions are broadly defined. The FHWA believes
that these proposed definitions would provide greater consistency for
characterizing pavement condition for the proposed measure.
For purposes of this subpart, the FHWA proposes to define
``pavement'' as any hard surfaced travel lanes of any highway. While
there are many definitions currently in practice, FHWA selected this
proposed definition because it focuses on the surface of the pavement,
which is what would actually be measured and evaluated to assess
pavement condition. The FHWA proposes to include the definition of
``Pavement Surface Rating (PSR)'' because PSR values were previously
permitted to be submitted in the HPMS in lieu of IRI, if IRI values
were not available or obtainable. Under this proposal, PSR could not be
used in lieu of IRI to measure or rate NHS pavement condition.
The FHWA proposes to include the definition of ``punchout'' as a
pavement failure specific to CRCP condition that needs to be evaluated
for the performance measures.
The FHWA proposes to define ``rutting'' because it is another
pavement failure condition that needs to be evaluated for the
performance measures.
The FHWA proposes to include the definition of ``sampling'' because
it is an approach to data collection that is referenced in this NPRM.
The sampling of some pavement condition data that is currently
permitted on non-Interstate NHS routes would be discussed in this
subpart.
Discussion of Sec. 490.307 National Performance Management Measures
for Assessing Pavement Condition
The next several sections discuss the measures that are proposed to
assess pavement condition. This first section introduces the proposed
measures and the following sections discuss the metrics, data
requirements, and processes for calculating the measures. Once the
measures have been established by FHWA, they would be used by States
and MPOs for the establishment of targets and in the determination of
progress toward the achievement of targets for pavement condition. In
addition, FHWA would use these measures to assess compliance with the
minimum condition of Interstate System pavements as required in 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
[[Page 363]]
The establishment of a measure for pavement condition poses
challenges because current State DOT measure definitions and data
collection approaches vary across State DOTs and local agencies and
there is limited availability of consistent data at a national level. A
summary of the challenges associated with developing national measures
as documented in national studies 65 66 is provided below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ NCHRP (2009) Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data
Collection, NCHRP Synthesis 401. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_401.pdf.
\66\ FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality Management of
Pavement Condition Data Collection. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data items collected varies across agencies.--The data
items the State DOTs collect and the frequency with which they are
collected, although similar, vary across the agencies. For example,
Colorado DOT collects cracking, rutting and IRI, but Florida DOT
collects surface distress, faulting, rutting, and IRI.
Data collection protocols vary across agencies.--While
FHWA, AASHTO, and the American Society for Testing and Materials have
all issued standards for the terminology, definitions, and data
collection techniques, a recent national study indicated that there is
still variation in defining types of pavement failures and collection
methods used by highway and local transportation agencies. In addition,
while fully automated and semi-automated technologies have gained wide
acceptance in pavement condition data collection, some State DOTs still
use manual surveys (including walking and windshield surveys).
Data collection coverage varies across State DOTs and
local agencies.--The extent of the pavement system that is monitored
for condition assessment differs across State DOTs and local agencies
where there is no consistency in the number of directions, the number
of lanes, and the percentage of system length that are collected.
Methods for determining the number and locations of samples vary among
different State DOTs and the statistical significance of these sampling
techniques is largely unknown.
Reporting intervals vary across State DOTs.--Pavement
condition data is typically aggregated in pavement sections for
reporting. The section lengths of pavement condition vary from 0.01 to
1 mile or more depending on State DOT.
Pavement condition metrics and measures vary across State
DOTs.--The State DOTs evaluate the condition and anticipated
performance of pavements differently. Not all State DOTs classify
pavements as Good, Fair or Poor. The State DOTs that do classify
pavements as Good, Fair, or Poor, each have unique definitions for
these terms.
Data Quality Management practices vary among State DOTs
from highly elaborate systems to none at all.
Considering these challenges, FHWA proposes to establish the
following as part of this rulemaking: (1) State DOTs and MPOs use a set
of national measures that are based on broadly accepted metrics to
assess pavement conditions; and (2) data elements and consistent data
collection and management practices for pavement condition assessment
that allow State DOTs and MPOs to continue with most of their current
pavement management practices.
In Sec. 490.307, FHWA proposes performance measures to assess the
pavement condition of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS. The
performance measures for pavements on the Interstate System and the
non-Interstate NHS would be the Percentages of lane-miles classified in
Good and Poor Condition. The State DOTs and FHWA would classify each
section of pavement as Good, Fair, or Poor, based on measurements of
IRI, percentage of cracking, and either percentage of rutting or
faulting in each pavement section. Pavement sections would be uniform
in size, except as provided in Sec. 490.311(c)(1), and would be
defined using inventory data items that establish the location, number
of lanes, surface type, and whether a bridge exists in the section.
These measurements would be rated for severity and combined into an
overall rating for each section of pavement. The State DOTs would use
overall ratings for sections contained in the appropriate highway
system to establish targets and report progress toward the achievement
of those targets.
The FHWA believes that the inclusion of IRI in the measure is
essential to capture the extent that pavement conditions are affecting
the operation of the highway. Thus, if IRI is excessive, traffic would
operate at slower speeds to avoid damage to vehicles, maintain safety,
cause less discomfort to passengers, and avoid damage to cargo.
Inclusion of Cracking_Percent, rutting and faulting in the measures
captures the extent of pavement structural deterioration and liability
for future maintenance and reconstruction. The State DOTs currently use
similar measurements and data items in their Pavement Management
Systems, but typically use different standards for data collection and
different methods for guiding pavement decisions. The FHWA recognizes
the importance of standardization of data collection and data
management practices and identifies critical data collection practices
and methods in Sec. 490.309.
Relationship between Sec. 490.309 (Data Requirements), 490.311
(Calculation of Pavement Metrics), and 490.313 (Calculation of Pavement
Management Measures)
The proposed approach to determining pavement measures includes
data requirements, methods to determine pavement, and methods to
calculate pavement condition. This proposed approach is presented in
the next three sections as follows:
Data Requirements--Sec. 490.309 outlines the data
necessary to determine a set of metrics that would be reported to the
HPMS and then used to calculate pavement measures. The type of data to
be collected, the methods of data collection, and the extent and
frequency of collection are all proposed in this section.
Pavement Metrics--Sec. 490.311 describes a set of metrics
that would be calculated from the data collected. The proposed pavement
metrics would be calculated for sections of highway pavement and
reported by the State DOT to the HPMS.
Pavement Measures--Sec. 490.313 provides the method to
calculate measures using the metrics reported in the HPMS. The State
DOTs would use the measures to report the condition of Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS pavements and establish targets and
report on progress.
Discussion of Sec. 490.309 Data Requirements
Even before the passage of MAP-21, FHWA and stakeholders recognized
the need for standardized data collection. The pavement community
(i.e., FHWA, States, local agencies, private industry and academia) is
continuing to conduct research to refine and standardize data
collection, reporting and production. The following are provided as
example of efforts that are underway, or have recently been completed,
that support the national pavement performance measure:
Evaluate differences in State DOTs data sources and the
HPMS data sources and provide recommended actions to improve any
consistency issues.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20-24(82) ``Improving
Consistency in HPMS Pavement Data.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build on existing work to document the current approaches
used by State
[[Page 364]]
DOTs to rate overall pavement condition and to drive pavement
investment decisionmaking.\68\ The outcome of this report would
recommend approaches that State DOTs can use to develop a national
pavement performance measure that has the least impact on current
practices to rate condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20-24(37J) ``Comparative
Study on Pavement Structural Adequacy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA is proposing in Sec. 490.309 the data requirements needed
to calculate the proposed pavement performance measures, including the
incorporation by reference of the FHWA HPMS Field Manual \69\ (``HPMS
Field Manual'') by reference. These requirements are necessary in order
to calculate the pavement conditions measures discussed in Sec.
490.313. The existing HPMS was selected as the reporting mechanism for
this proposed subpart because State DOTs are familiar with this data
source and its content. In addition, the current HPMS reporting
frequency closely aligns with this proposal. The following section
discusses the relevant requirements of the Field Manual. Note that
definitions and language from the HPMS Field Manual have been used in
the subpart to avoid confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ FHWA (2013) HPMS Field Manual. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 490.309(a), FHWA proposes that State DOTs and other local
agencies collect data in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual to
report four condition metrics: IRI, rutting, faulting, and
Cracking_Percent. Nearly all State DOTs \70\ currently collect these
metrics using similar data collection processes that are based on
existing AASHTO Standards and required for HPMS submittals. In addition
to the four condition metrics, FHWA proposes that State DOTs provide
three HPMS inventory data elements that define the pavement sections
used to calculate the proposed pavement condition. These three
inventory data elements include: Through Lanes, Surface Type, and
Structure Type. The data elements identified in this proposed subpart
are considered necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to
carry out a performance-based approach as required by 23 U.S.C.
150(c)(3)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality Management of
Pavement Condition Data Collection. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 490.309(b), FHWA proposes data requirements that are
necessary to calculate the four proposed metrics for pavements on the
Interstate System and on the non-Interstate NHS. The proposed
requirements in this section define what data would be required to be
collected, how extensive the data collection would be, and how often
the data would need to be collected. To ensure data consistency between
the data collection cycles, FHWA proposes that data would be collected
in the rightmost lane of travel, or in one consistent lane if the
rightmost lane is not accessible. Additional data collection
requirements specified in this section would be more stringent than
current HPMS requirements in the following areas:
1. State DOTs would be required to collect data on the full extent
of Interstate System to calculate the four metrics and on the full
extent of the NHS to identify the three data elements.
2. Beginning in 2018, State DOTs would be required to collect data
on the full extent of non-Interstate NHS to calculate the 4 metrics.
3. States DOTs would be required to collect data in both directions
of travel of the Interstate System to calculate the four metrics and
identify three data elements.
4. States DOTs would be required to collect data on the full
Interstate System annually and calculate the four metrics.
5. States DOTs would be required to collect data on the non-
Interstate NHS biennially after the transition period ending December
31, 2017.
The FHWA proposes the specific data collection requirements for
Interstate System pavements in Sec. 490.309(b)(1) and for non-
Interstate NHS pavements in Sec. 490.309(b)(2). The FHWA recognizes
that although these proposed data collection requirements would be
similar to current HPMS data collection practices, they would, in some
aspects, increase the burden on State DOTs to assess pavement condition
for national reporting. The FHWA feels that this increased level of
effort is necessary to improve consistency and to ensure more accurate
and timely reporting of national pavement conditions. Currently, State
DOTs typically manage and maintain each direction of the Interstate
System as separate roadways and only report in one direction. The FHWA
feels that reporting the measurement in both directions is essential to
this process.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ FHWA (2012).Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway
Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report, FHWA-HIF-12-049. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/hif12049.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of HPMS submittal, State DOTs have been required to collect
and report IRI data on the full length of the NHS annually. In
addition, as of 2010, State DOTs have been required to collect and
report rutting, Cracking_Percent, and faulting conditions using a
sampling approach for all Federal-aid eligible roadway pavements. Since
2010, FHWA's review of HPMS data submittals has exposed many
inconsistencies in State DOT submittals. For the Interstate System
several State DOTs have not submitted any Cracking_Percent, faulting or
rutting data; others have submitted data only for a limited portion of
the roadway network; and many anomalies have been found in the data
that have raised questions regarding the accuracy of the data.
Inconsistencies in State DOT submittals are not unexpected. While
sampling can be a valid process for handling large quantities of data,
it is only representative of actual pavement conditions when it follows
a known distribution, such as a normal distribution and the data is
collected randomly. Neither of these conditions exist for pavements on
the NHS. Collecting data on a truly random basis is not practical or
desirable for States to use for managing pavement programs.
Furthermore, the States are adopting automated devices for data
collection for reasons of objectivity and safety for personnel.
Although these devices are not a perfect replacement for manual
surveys, they are rapidly developing and are making the need for
sampling pavement data obsolete. For these reasons, FHWA is proposing
to prohibit the practice of expanding samples to populate the HPMS with
data for the full extent of the system. The FHWA wants data collected
for the full extent of both the Interstate System and the NHS.
The FHWA recognizes the increased burden imposed on State DOTs for
full extent data collection for mainline highways on the non-Interstate
NHS. In consideration of this fact, FHWA is proposing in Sec.
490.309(b)(2)(i)(E) to reduce the current frequency of reporting for
IRI on the non-Interstate NHS from annual reports to biennial
reporting. In addition, FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.309(b)(2)(ii) and
(iii) a phased-in approach to comply with data collection requirements
of the non-Interstate NHS. This approach allows State DOTs to phase in
these new data collection requirement while continuing their existing
HPMS reporting practices through the data collection cycle ending on
December 31, 2017 (the 2nd Data Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below). By
December 31, 2019, all State DOTs would have a completed data
collection cycle (the 3rd Data Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below)
conforming to the new
[[Page 365]]
requirements. In addition to reducing the immediate burden to State
DOTs, FHWA proposes this transition period so that it will align with
the State DOT biennial performance reporting requirements under 23
U.S.C. 150(e). As proposed in Sec. Sec. 490.105 and 490.107 on State
DOT target establishment and reporting requirements, State DOTs are
required to establish targets in Calendar Year 2016 for a performance
period ending in December 31, 2019. Thus, the data collected during the
data collection cycle ending on December 31, 2019 (the 3rd Data
Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below), would be used to: (1) Assess
target achievement for the targets established in 2016; and (2)
establish a baseline for new targets in 2020 for the performance period
ending on December 31, 2023.
In the case of the non-Interstate NHS, a State DOT has a biennial
data collection cycle. In the first two data cycles, a State DOT would
collect data for the full extent of the system to allow for reporting
of the IRI metric for the non-Interstate NHS. However, data collected
to support the faulting, rutting, and Cracking_Percent would be
required only in sample panels of the system to meet HPMS reporting
requirements and would not be required to calculate the pavement
condition measure proposed in this rulemaking. Beginning with the third
data collection cycle (the latest data collection cycle that ends on
December 31, 2019; see Figure 7), and continuing with subsequent
cycles, State DOTs would be required to collect data for the full
extent of the system to report the IRI, faulting, rutting and
Cracking_Percent metrics.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.014
To ensure the collection of data in a consistent manner to provide
for credible national performance/condition reporting, FHWA proposes in
Sec. 490.309(b)(3) the use of the AASHTO data collection standards for
supporting the proposed measure. The section provides specific data
collection standards, where appropriate, and incorporates the AASHTO
standards by reference. The AASHTO standards are proposed because they
are considered as best practices, specifically by State DOTs, and are
recognized worldwide. A summary of proposed data collection standards
is presented in Table 4.
Table 4--A Summary of Proposed Data Collection Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data metric Proposed protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRI for all Pavement Types... IRI collection device in
accordance with AASHTO Standard M328-14.
Collection of IRI data in
accordance with AASHTO Standard R57-14.
Cracking_Percent for all Either manual cracking data
Pavement Types (Except CRCP). collection and analysis in accordance
with AASHTO Standard R55-10 (2013) or
Automated Cracking Data Collection and
Analysis in accordance with AASHTO
Standard PP67-14 and AASHTO Standard
PP68-14.
Cracking_Percent for CRCP.... Percentage of pavement surface
with longitudinal cracking and/or
punchouts, spalling or other visible
defects (as described in the HPMS field
manual).
Transverse cracking in CRCP is
not included in the cracking
computation.
Rutting for Asphalt Pavements Either the 5-Point Collection of
Rutting Data method in accordance with
AASHTO Standard R48-10 (2003) or the
Automated Transverse Profile Data method
in accordance with AASHTO Standard PP69-
14 and AASHTO Standard PP70-14.
Faulting for Jointed PCCP.... Measured pavement profiles using
AASHTO Standard R36-13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 366]]
In Sec. 490.309(c), FHWA proposes the data collection requirements
to identify the three data elements that State DOTs would be required
to use to calculate the performance measures. These are essentially
highway inventory items that are already reported by State DOTs to the
HPMS. These data elements define the type of pavement, and whether or
not there is a bridge at that location. Consistent with all of the
pavement conditions and measures on the NHS, FHWA proposes that these
elements be measured and not estimated from samples. This proposed
approach would help achieve standardized data collection at a national
level.
Discussion of Sec. 490.311 Calculation of Pavement Metrics
In Sec. 490.311, FHWA proposes the method to calculate and report
the four pavement metrics and three inventory data elements discussed
in Sec. 490.309(a) from the data collected. The FHWA is proposing
specific methodologies for calculating the metric, where appropriate,
and incorporates the HPMS Field Manual by reference for any areas not
specifically covered. The metric and inventory data element reporting
requirements specified in this section would be more stringent than
current HPMS requirements in the following areas:
1. The States DOTs would be required to report the four metrics and
three inventory data elements in segments of 0.1 mile.
2. The States DOTs would be required to report the four metrics and
three inventory data elements biennially for the non-Interstate NHS
after the transition period ending December 31, 2019.
3. The State DOTs would be required to report the four metrics and
three inventory data elements to the HPMS by April 15 each year for
Interstate System pavements.
The FHWA is proposing in Sec. 490.311(b) that State DOTs calculate
the IRI metric from profile data in accordance with AASHTO Standard
R43-13. The metric would be reported for all pavements as the average
value in inches per mile, rounded to the nearest whole number, for each
section. This method has been widely adopted by State DOTs for
determining the IRI metric.\72\ In addition, FHWA would not permit IRI
to be estimated from a PSR or other observation-based methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ FHWA 2013, Practical Guide for Quality Management of
Pavement Condition Data Collection. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of differences in the engineering properties, the
Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting metrics are calculated
differently for each type of pavement. The FHWA proposes in Sec.
490.311(b)(2) that for asphalt sections, the Cracking_Percent metric
would be computed as the percentage of the total area, to the nearest
whole percent, that are exhibiting cracking, and the rutting metric
would be computed as the average depth of rutting, to the nearest 0.05
inch, for the section. The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.311(b)(3) that
for CRCP, the Cracking_Percent metric would be computed as the
percentage of the area, to the nearest whole percent, of the full
section exhibiting longitudinal cracking, punchouts, spalling, or other
visible defects. In addition, FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.311(b)(3) that
transverse cracking not be considered in the computation for the
Cracking_Percent metrics for CRCP because transverse cracking is not
considered a pavement failure indicator for CRCP. The FHWA proposes in
Sec. 490.311(b)(4) that for jointed concrete pavement, the
Cracking_Percent metric would be computed as the percentage of slabs,
to the nearest whole percent, within the section that exhibit cracking.
The FHWA proposes that partial slabs should contribute to the section
that contains the majority of the slab length. In addition, FHWA
proposes that the faulting metric would be computed as the average
height, to the nearest 0.05 inch, of faulting between pavement slabs
for the section.
The type and extent of cracking used for the Cracking_Percent
metric varies by pavement type. For asphalt pavement the
Cracking_Percent metric considers all cracking present in the section
area, for jointed concrete pavements the Cracking_Percent metric
considers any crack present in a slab within the section, and for CRCP
the Cracking_Percent metric considers only longitudinal cracking in the
section area (plus the additional non-cracking related items discussed
in Sec. 490.311(b)(3)). The metric calculations of Cracking_Percent
for different pavements are proposed to align with existing HPMS
practices and avoid the need for major changes in measurement and
calculation practices by State DOTs.
In Sec. 490.311(c)(1), FHWA proposes all pavement metrics and data
inventory elements be reported in uniform 0.1-mile sections. Shorter
sections may be used at the beginning of a route, end of a route, or at
locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not achievable. The
FHWA feels that a consistent reporting interval reduces discrepancies
in calculating the percentages of system sections classified in Good,
Fair, or Poor Condition that are associated with varied section
lengths. In Figure 8, a \1/2\-mile road measured at both the 0.1-mile
interval and at 0.5-mile section shows the following hypothetical
results.
[[Page 367]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.015
For the 0.1-mile sections shown in Figure 8(a), 40 percent of the
road is classified Good, 20 percent of the road is classified Fair, and
40 percent of the road is classified Poor when pavement conditions are
measured. However, when the same road pavement conditions are measured
at a 0.5-mile interval as shown in Figure 8(b), the entire roadway (100
percent) may be summarized (i.e., averaged) to be Fair, which presents
a very different account of pavement condition for this length of
roadway as compared to an approach that uses a shorter section length
to report condition. This 0.1 mile uniform section length, which is
proposed to be used for the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS,
is supported by a recommendation provided by stakeholders.\73\ The FHWA
requests comments on whether a 0.1 mile uniform section length is
appropriate for both the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ AASHTO (2013). SCOPM Task Force Findings on MAP-21
Performance Measure Target-Setting. AASHTO Standing Committee on
Performance Management. https://scopm.transportation.org/Documents/SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20Findings%20on%20Performance%20Measure%20Target-Setting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.311(c)(2) that State DOTs provide a
single value for each of the four metrics and three data elements for
each \1/10\ mile segment reported to the HPMS per year. The FHWA feels
that using uniform section lengths to report to the HPMS will improve
consistency. Considering this, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would not
be allowed to break a \1/10\ mile section into multiple shorter
sections unless the \1/10\ section is truncated at the termini of a
roadway. A State DOT would also not be allowed to submit multiple
entries for the four metrics and three data elements for the same \1/
10\ mile section length. This redundant reporting would be considered
invalid data and would be subject to the requirement specified in Sec.
490.313.
Section 490.311(c)(3) proposes that State DOTs would report for
each section containing any of the four metrics or three inventory data
elements a time and location reference. The HPMS includes a standard
location referencing framework that would be required under this
proposal, which includes the State_Code, Route_ID, Begin_Point, and
End_Point. The date for which the data represents for each section
would be reported as year in the HPMS Year_Record field for each of
sections containing any of the four metrics or three inventory data
elements. In addition, the Value_Date field would be reported as the
month and year of data collection for each of the sections containing
any of the four metrics. This data information is needed to associate
the reported condition metric to the performance year.
Section 490.311(c)(4) provides that State DOTs report the four
metrics and three inventory data elements for the Interstate System to
the HPMS no later than April 15 of each calendar year. The information
reported to the HPMS would be calculated from data collected from
roadway sections in the prior calendar year. For example, the data
collected from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, would be
used to calculate the four metrics and three inventory data elements
that would be reported to the HPMS no later than April 15, 2017.
Additionally, FHWA is proposing in Sec. 490.311(c)(5) that State DOTs
report the four metrics and three inventory data elements for the non-
Interstate NHS to the HPMS no later than June 15 of each calendar year,
the current due date to report to the HPMS.
Discussion of Sec. 490.313 Calculation of Performance Management
Measures
In Sec. 490.313, FHWA proposes the method for calculating the
pavement measures using the pavement metrics and data elements. In
Sec. 490.313(a), FHWA proposes how the pavement measures would be used
by FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs.
In Sec. 490.313(b), FHWA proposes the method to calculate
condition ratings that would use a Good, Fair, and Poor rating approach
for each of the four pavement metrics discussed in Sec. 490.311. This
approach would use thresholds that would be applied to each of the four
pavement metrics to determine the condition rating of Good, Fair, or
Poor. The proposed thresholds are based on documented research. As an
example, the proposed pavement rutting thresholds have been correlated
to threshold levels that minimize the risk of vehicle hydroplaning.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ ``Potential Safety Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Rutted
Pavements'' by Start, M R,Kim, J,Berg, W D; Transportation Research
Record, Issue Number: 1629, Publisher: Transportation Research
Board,ISSN: 0361-1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.313(b), the criteria to determine
Good, Fair and Poor pavement condition ratings using each metric. These
proposed criteria are based on the levels used by FHWA to report ride
quality conditions for the IRI metric and the default design criteria
thresholds established for the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design
Guide.\75\ The proposed criteria to
[[Page 368]]
determine Good, Fair, and Poor ratings are summarized in Table 5. The
FHWA encourages comments on the appropriateness of these proposed
criteria and any alternative levels that would be appropriate for
network level condition assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures'', NCHRP 1-37A, 2004, https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_toc.pdf.
Table 5--Proposed Pavement Condition Rating Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface type Metric Metric range Rating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pavements....................... IRI.................... <95.................... Good.
95-170: Areas with a Fair.
population less than
1,000,000.
95-220: Urbanized areas
with a population of
at least 1,000,000.
>170: Areas with a Poor.
population less than
1,000,000.
>220: Urbanized areas
with a population of
at least 1,000,000.
Asphalt Pavement and Jointed Cracking_Percent....... <5%.................... Good.
Concrete Pavement. 5-10%.................. Fair.
>10%................... Poor.
Asphalt Pavement.................... Rutting................ <0.20.................. Good.
0.20-0.40.............. Fair.
>0.40.................. Poor.
Jointed Concrete Pavement........... Faulting............... <0.05.................. Good.
0.05-0.15.............. Fair.
>0.15.................. Poor.
CRCP................................ Cracking_Percent....... <5%.................... Good.
5-10%.................. Fair.
>10%................... Poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall pavement condition is derived from the policies that State
DOTs use for initiating construction activities for maintenance and/or
safety repairs. State DOTs advise that IRI conditions are more
difficult to preserve in urbanized areas than in non-urbanized areas.
In consideration of this and because speeds are typically slower in
urbanized areas, FHWA is proposing different thresholds for Fair and
Poor IRI for large urbanized areas. In particular, FHWA proposes that
the criteria to classify Poor condition be increased to an IRI of 220
in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million. The proposed IRI
threshold of 170 is commonly used by State DOTs in non-urbanized areas.
The proposed IRI threshold of 220 for urbanized areas with a population
over 1 million is based on the upper end of IRI value distributions
derived from the data submitted by State DOTs.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ FHWA, Table HM-47 in 2011 Highway Statistic. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/hm47.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic levels were not included in the computation of pavement
conditions except as implied by location as either urbanized or non-
urbanized areas. Although traffic is an important consideration for the
design of pavements, it is not considered a measure of the existing
pavement condition. For this reason, the proposed rating system
described in paragraphs (b) through (e) was designed without weightings
or other prioritization related to anything other than the physical
characteristics of the pavement structure. The FHWA is seeking
stakeholders' comment on the IRI threshold values. Because of safety
and pavement structural implications, Cracking_Percent, rutting, and
faulting are the same for all population areas.
The FHWA proposes that condition ratings would be determined for
each section of mainline highway.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.313(b)(4) how missing or invalid
data would be addressed. The FHWA would determine, on the dates
specified in 490.109(d)(1) and 490.109(d)(2), for the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS, respectively, any mainline mileage that is
incomplete due to any of the following scenarios:
Sections are missing, resulting in gaps in the mileage to
be reported; or
sections are reported that do not contain all the data
required in Sec. 490.311(c) or contain invalid data.
The FHWA is proposing to address incomplete mainline mileage by:
Rating the mainline mileage as being in Poor condition for
the corresponding metric where the mileage is considered incomplete due
to missing or invalid sections for any of the four metrics; or
rating the mainline mileage as being in overall Poor
condition where the mileage is considered incomplete due to missing or
invalid sections for any of the three inventory data elements.
The FHWA believes that completeness of data is essential to
reliable and defensible reporting of pavement condition. The HPMS data
needed to calculate the proposed pavement condition measure is, in some
cases, incomplete. In 2012, 12 State DOTs were missing data from
samples that represented at least 50 percent of their Interstate System
and 3 State DOTs were not able to provide any samples with complete
data for their portion of the Interstate System. In aggregate, 27
percent of the full Interstate System lane mileage was represented by
samples with missing HPMS data in 2012. Approximately 11 percent of the
Interstate System would be rated in Poor condition if the proposed
approach to addressing missing data was applied to the 2012 HPMS data.
In contrast, only approximately 2 percent of the Interstate System
would be rated in Poor condition if the missing 27 percent of data were
excluded from the estimated calculation. This does not account for
invalid data. The FHWA believes that it is critically important to use
the entire network system (Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS)
when assessing pavement conditions. The FHWA encourages comments on
alternative methods for addressing missing or invalid data that would
provide for an
[[Page 369]]
accurate assessment of network level conditions.
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.313(c) and (d) that an Overall
Condition Rating be determined based on the individual condition
ratings for the metrics as illustrated in Figure 9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.016
For an asphalt or jointed concrete pavement section to be
classified in overall Good condition, all three criteria would have to
be met. If a pavement section has two or more Poor criteria, it would
be classified as Poor. For example, a section exceeding the criteria
for IRI but not meeting the criteria for Cracking_Percent and the
criteria for rutting would be classified in overall Poor condition
because the rutting is a safety hazard and the cracking indicates that
the section is structurally failing. Because of the distinct
engineering properties of CRCP, there are only two criteria for
determining the overall pavement condition, IRI and Cracking_Percent.
For a CRCP section, both the IRI and Cracking_Percent criteria would
need to be rated Good in order for a section to be classified in
overall Good condition. Conversely, for a CRCP section, a condition
rating of Poor means that both the IRI and Cracking_Percent criteria
are rated as Poor.
As outlined above, the FHWA is proposing an approach to determining
pavement condition that requires at least 2 metrics to be exhibiting a
Poor level of condition in order for the overall condition of a
pavement section to be considered Poor. This approach recognizes the
predominant condition represented by the metrics as the driver of the
overall pavement condition. An alternative approach could consider the
lowest rated metric as the indicator driving the overall condition of
the pavement section, essentially only requiring 1 metric to be in Poor
condition in order for the pavement section to be rated Poor overall.
The FHWA elected to use a predominant approach as this concept is
typical of the approach used by many State DOTs today to evaluate
pavement condition. In addition, FHWA wanted to propose a condition
assessment method that minimizes the potential for any single metric,
such as ride quality, to dominate the condition. Further, FHWA believes
that a predominant approach more accurately recognizes that pavement
[[Page 370]]
condition is impacted by multiple failure criteria. For example, a
pavement that is exhibiting both Poor cracking and Poor rutting is more
indicative of a structural problem as compared to a pavement that is
only exhibiting Poor cracking.
In Sec. 490.313(e), FHWA proposes that the Overall condition for
all pavement types on the non-Interstate NHS be solely based on IRI,
until the collection cycle ending December 31, 2019.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.017
For the purpose of establishing targets and reporting of condition,
FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.313(f) that State DOTs and MPOs report
system-level condition measure computed to the one tenth of a percent
as Good and Poor percentages of lane-miles of Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS. The Percentages of lane-miles in Good (or Poor)
condition is calculated from the total of the lengths of the sections
in Good (or Poor) condition, the number of mainline lanes in each
section, and the total length of all sections. Bridges would be
excluded by excluding any samples that have a Structure Type of 1 prior
to computing all pavement condition measures. State DOTs and MPOs would
do separate calculations for the Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS measures. These measures would be used for establishing targets and
reporting the condition of pavements in the biennial performance
report.
Discussion of Sec. 490.315 Establishment of Minimum Level for
Condition of Pavements on the Interstate System
Selection of Minimum Condition Levels for the Interstate System
The FHWA is required to establish minimum levels for the condition
of pavement on the Interstate System for carrying out 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1). (23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii)) The Interstate System, which
includes approximately 48,000 miles of access-controlled highways, is
considered one of the most important infrastructure assets in the
world.\77\ The FHWA proposes a minimum condition level that would
minimize impacts to this System: State DOTs maintain no more than 5.0
percent of their pavements on the Interstate System in Poor
condition.\78\ In selecting this level, the FHWA evaluated the costs
and impacts to State DOTs and highway users as well as the estimated
ability for State DOTs to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ FHWA Highway Statistics 2011, Table VM-1, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/vm1.cfm
\78\ The FHWA did consider the establishment of different
minimum condition thresholds for different geographic regions and
felt that separate thresholds for these areas were not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor, as defined in this proposal, represents a level of condition
that
[[Page 371]]
would adversely impact system performance and the ability to
effectively manage network level conditions to meet user needs. There
are several costs and other impacts associated with the existence of
Poor condition pavements, including increased repair costs, increased
VOCs, costs associated with work zones, and impacts to the environment,
local communities and businesses. Considering these impacts, FHWA would
like to minimize the existence of Poor condition pavements on the
Interstate System but also allow States flexibility to manage their
pavements system-wide. The FHWA believes that it is impractical to set
an expectation to remove all Poor condition pavements from the
Interstate System as it could result in ineffective pavement management
practices by forcing State DOTs to chase small percentages of Poor
pavements at the risk of ignoring efforts to preserve pavements in Good
and Fair conditions. Understanding this challenge, FHWA believes that a
minimum condition level of 5.0 percent (approximately 2,400 miles
nationally) would minimize the costs impacts associated with Poor
condition pavements on the Interstate System, and would allow State
DOTs to effectively manage the overall performance of the pavement
network through the delivery of a mix of treatments to address all
pavement condition levels. This would optimize investment returns.
The FHWA also considered current target establishment practices
used by State DOTs and actual pavement conditions existing on the
Interstate System. The FHWA reviewed a sample of pavement condition
target values in use by a number of State DOTs \79\ in their planning
processes and targets documented in recent research studies.\80\ The
FHWA found only a limited number of cases where a State DOT has
established a target specifically addressing pavements on its portion
of the Interstate System at Poor condition levels. In the majority of
these cases the target was established at or below 5.0 percent. The
FHWA's proposal is consistent with policies set by State DOTs that have
established targets associated with the level of Poor pavements on the
Interstate System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Washington State DOT Gray Notebook https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/SI_pavement.htm Kansas DOT. KDOT Long
Range Transportation Plan, Section 2.2 https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LRTP2008/pdf/KS_LRTPFinal.Chapter_2.pdf Texas DOT. TxDOT
Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan--2035 Final Report, Section
2.6 https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/slrtp_final_ch2.pdf
\80\ Pavement Score Synthesis, TXDOT Study, January, 2009, NCHRP
Report 522, and NCHRP Report 551
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also evaluated pavement conditions State DOTs submitted to
the HPMS for the Interstate System in 2012. Although the HPMS data
submitted in 2012 was not complete and was not reported following the
same data collection and process standards included in this proposal,
FHWA believes that it provides a general understanding of the extent to
which the proposed threshold could be met when implemented. Based on
the 2012 submitted data, FHWA estimates that approximately 1.7 percent
of the Interstate System was in Poor condition and that approximately
87 percent of State DOTs would meet a 5.0 percent threshold on
allowable Poor pavements.\81\ It is difficult to accurately assess the
impacts of the proposed 5.0 percent minimum condition level on State
DOT investment programming for Interstate System pavements because the
full baseline of conditions using the proposed pavement measures does
not exist today for every State. The estimates discussed above were
based on a sample of the full data from States that had provided a full
baseline condition data. For this reason, FHWA is committed to
reassessing the minimum Interstate System pavement condition level in
the future after a sufficient level of data is reported to establish a
baseline and trends of pavement conditions on the entire Interstate
System. The FHWA expects to reassess the minimum Interstate pavement
condition level after the completion of the first full performance
period to determine if additional system improvements can be achieved
through adjustments to the required minimum condition level. The FHWA
will conduct a rulemaking with an opportunity for public comment if it
is determined through the assessment that the minimum level should be
adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Estimate based on HPMS data provided by 31 State DOTs and
excludes Interstate System mileage within these States that is
represented by samples with missing data. These State DOTs were able
to submit complete data (needed to calculate the proposed pavement
condition measure) for samples that represented at least 80 percent
of their Interstate System lane-miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA further evaluated the 2012 HPMS data to examine the
possibility of geographical differences in percent lane-miles of the
Interstate System in Poor pavement condition as described in 23 U.S.C.
150(c)(3)(B). The FHWA evaluated lane-mile distribution of the
Interstate System pavement conditions among different traffic volumes,
climatic conditions, and terrain types. Consequently, the data
suggested that there is no evidence to conclude that there are
significant differences in percent lane-miles of the Interstate System
in Poor pavement condition among the Interstate System pavement
sections in these various areas. However, FHWA seeks comments on the
need to establish different thresholds for geographic regions.
A white paper included in the docket includes additional
information on FHWA's rationale for the proposed minimum condition
threshold. Recognizing the limitations associated with an analytical
approach to developing the threshold, FHWA is seeking comment on:
The proposed minimum level, including suggestions for
alternative approaches to implementing the minimum condition
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1);
potential impacts resulting from the existence of Poor
condition Interstate System pavements;
the appropriate threshold level to establish a minimum
condition for the Interstate pavement system nationally and within each
State;
the need to establish different thresholds for different
geographic regions;
the need to reassess and potentially adjust, through
rulemaking, the minimum condition threshold after the completion of the
first full performance period;
whether FHWA should, in the final rule, establish a
minimum condition threshold that would become more stringent over time,
to replace in the future the proposed initial 5 percent level, in order
to reflect the improvements made to the system over time; and
the lowest minimum condition level that could be
maintained for Interstate System pavements in the future.
Discussion of Sec. 490.317 Penalties for Not Maintaining Condition
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f), Sec. 490.317 describes the method
FHWA will use to assess if a State DOT has maintained the minimum
condition level for pavements on the Interstate System. The FHWA is
proposing to make this determination after the first full year of data
collection and each year thereafter. Considering that this rule is
scheduled to be effective in 2015, the first determination would be
made in 2017 (after a full year of data collection in 2016) and then
annually thereafter. The FHWA intends to make this determination in a
manner that can be replicated by State DOTs and others interested in
assessing State DOT compliance with Sec. 490.315(a) by
[[Page 372]]
extracting the data needed from the HPMS to make the determination on a
specific date each year. The FHWA is proposing to extract data from the
HPMS on June 15th of each year to provide sufficient time for State
DOTs to report pavement conditions for the prior year to the HPMS. This
timetable would also enable any requirements to obligate or transfer
funds to be in place by the next fiscal year.
If FHWA determines that the condition of the Interstate System
meets the requirement specified in Sec. 490.317(d), then no further
action is required by the State DOT for the next fiscal year. If FHWA
determines that a State DOT is out of compliance with 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1), then the State DOT would be subject to the requirements
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A)(i) and (ii).
The FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.317(e) to notify all State DOTs
annually of their compliance status with the minimum condition
requirements prior to October 1 of the year the determination would be
made.
Section 490.317(f) outlines the actions that would occur if FHWA
determines that a State DOT is out of compliance with 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1). This proposed section incorporates the requirements found in
23 U.S.C. 119(f). Under this proposal, States determined to be out of
compliance would be required to: (1) Obligate certain NHPP funds for
the purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as in effect on the day before
enactment of MAP-21) and increased by an amount each year after Fiscal
Year (FY) 2013, and (2) transfer certain apportioned Surface
Transportation Program for the purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as
in effect on the day before enactment of MAP-21). The day before
enactment of MAP-21, 23 U.S.C. 119 contained the requirements for the
Interstate Maintenance Program. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(B), the
requirement specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A) remains in effect until
the Interstate System pavement condition exceeds the minimum condition
level established by this NPRM. The FHWA is proposing to implement this
restoration requirement by making annual determinations of compliance.
The FHWA is proposing in Sec. 490.317(d) that it would make the
determination based on the data submitted to the HPMS each year by
assessing compliance with Sec. 490.315(a) for the most recent 2 years.
A proposed application of this NHPP minimum condition penalty is
provided in the docket.
The following example (illustrated in Table 6) indicates how this
provision would be carried out. Assuming that this rule is effective in
2015, a State DOT submits data collected on the Interstate System in
calendar year 2016 to the HPMS by April 15, 2017, and data collected on
the Interstate System in calendar year 2017 to the HPMS by April 15,
2018. The FHWA would review the submitted data for completeness and
would work with the State DOT to address any missing data. The FHWA
would extract data from the HPMS on June 15, 2017, to determine State
DOT compliance with Sec. 490.315(a) in 2016 and would notify the State
DOT before October 1 of the determination. Similarly in 2018, FHWA
would extract data from the HPMS, check compliance with the minimum
level for condition of pavements, and notify the State DOT following
the same schedule as described for 2017. If FHWA determined in both
2017 and 2018 that the State DOT did not comply with Sec. 490.315(a),
then beginning October 1, 2018, the State DOT would need to: (1)
Obligate, from the amount apportioned to the State for the NHPP, an
amount that is not less than the Interstate Maintenance apportionment
for the FY 2009, plus 2 percent per year compounded annually (for the 5
additional FYs after 2013); and (2) transfer certain apportioned
Surface Transportation Program funds equal to 10 percent of Interstate
Maintenance apportionment for the FY 2009. These funds would need to be
used to improve Interstate pavement conditions (as provided under the
pre-MAP-21 Interstate Maintenance Program). In 2019 and each year
thereafter, FHWA would assess the State DOT's compliance with Sec.
490.315(a). The State DOT would be subject to the obligation
requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) if in any
year it is determined that the State DOT was out of compliance with
Sec. 490.315(a) for the most recent 2 years.
Table 6--Determination of Compliance Based on HPMS Reporting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation requirement
Data to be used Date of determination effective date (if not Obligation
Data collection year HPMS reporting date for compliance and notification meeting minimum level requirement
determination requirement)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2016......................... April 15, 2017........... Data extracted Prior to October 1, 2017.
from HPMS on June
15, 2017, for
calendar year
2015 and 2016
Interstate System
pavement
conditions.
CY 2017......................... April 15, 2018........... Data extracted Prior to October 1, 2018. October 1, 2018......... At least [(FY09IM
from HPMS on June *) x (1.02)2019-
15, 2018, for 2013] ** + [0.10
calendar year x (FY09IM *)] ***
2017 and data
that was
extracted on June
15, 2017, for
calendar year
2016.
CY 2018 and each year thereafter April 15, 20XX+1......... Data extracted Prior to October 1, October 1, 20XX+1....... At least [(FY09IM
noted as ``CY 20##'' the from HPMS on June 20XX+1. *) x
columns to the right. 15, 20XX+1 for (1.02)(20XX+1)-
calendar year 2013] ** + [0.10
20XX, and data x (FY09IM *)] ***
that was
extracted on June
15, 20XX for
calendar year
20XX-1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FY 09IM denotes the amount of funds apportioned to a State for FY 2009 under the Interstate Maintenance program.
** Amount of NHPP to be obligated to addressing Interstate System pavement conditions.
*** Amount of STP to be transferred to the NHPP to address Interstate System pavement conditions.
[[Page 373]]
Discussion of Sec. 490.319 Other Requirements
To implement the Interstate System pavement minimum condition level
requirement and the issuance of any penalties, required under 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1), FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.319(a) that each State DOT
reports the required pavement condition metrics and data elements
outlined in Sec. Sec. 490.311 and 490.309(b)(4), respectively, to the
HPMS no later than April 15 of each year. The FHWA recognizes that
State DOTs need sufficient time after data collection to process data,
conduct data quality management activities, analyze data, and carry out
other required business processes that are necessary to prepare data
for upload into HPMS. Based on previous data management experience,
FHWA anticipates that additional time would be needed after the State
DOT reports to the HPMS to conduct checks to assure data quality and
completeness. Additionally, sufficient time is needed for FHWA's
compliance determination for minimum condition level, for State DOT
notification, and for FHWA to issue any resulting penalties so that
they are effective by the beginning of the next fiscal year as required
under 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1).
Thus, FHWA proposes that the State DOTs report to the HPMS the
proposed Interstate System pavement condition metrics and data elements
no later than April 15 of each year. This would allow for sufficient
time to carry out the necessary steps to make a timely and accurate
minimum condition determination. The FHWA recognizes that the proposed
schedule to report Interstate System data would accelerate the time
needed to report to the HPMS, which may impact a State DOT's ability to
effectively process data and ensure data quality. Understanding this
potential impact, FHWA is seeking comment from State DOTs on the
proposed schedule to implement the 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) minimum
condition requirements.
Provided that this proposed rule becomes effective in 2015, the
determination of compliance with the minimum condition requirements
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) would be carried out by FHWA for the
first time in 2018, based on information in the previous 2 years. The
2017 assessment will review 2016 minimum condition compliance and the
2018 assessment will review 2017 minimum condition compliance.
Following this implementation schedule, any transfer and obligation
requirements under 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) resulting from the minimum
condition compliance determination would not be in effect until FY
2019, or by October 1, 2018. Thus, the proposed requirement to submit
Interstate System data by April 15 would not be in effect until 2017.
This would allow time for State DOTs to prepare for this proposed
accelerated data reporting requirement.
In Sec. 490.319(b), FHWA proposes to retain the requirement
currently in the HPMS Field Manual that data for the non-Interstate NHS
pavement condition be reported to HPMS not later than June 15 of each
year.
In Sec. 490.319(c), FHWA proposes Data Quality Management program
requirements to implement 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iv) for pavement
condition data. Data quality management programs are a standard
practice in both private industry and the public sector wherever large
quantities of materials, products, or data are exchanged. For purposes
of assessing pavement conditions, there are considerable data
requirements and significant consequences attached to the outcomes of
the analyses. The FHWA proposes that each State DOT must have a data
quality management program for the data required to assess pavement
conditions. This proposal would require State DOTs to submit their Data
Quality Management Programs to FHWA for approval. Once approved, State
DOTs would use that program to collect and report data. State DOTs
would also be required to have FHWA approve significant changes prior
to implementation. A significant change would occur when a State DOT
changes fundamental processes, procedures, or acceptance criteria.
Examples of significant change include moving from in-house data
collection to contract collection, changing from manual to automated
data collection, contracting with an independent assurance firm, and
similar actions. The design of the data quality management program is
left to discretion of State DOTs, as long as it includes the following
items:
Data Collection equipment, calibration, and certification;
Certification process for persons performing manual data
collection, if used;
Data quality control measures conducted both before data
collection begins and periodically during the data collection program;
Data sampling, review, and checking processes; and
Error resolution procedures and data acceptance criteria.
C. Section-by-Section Discussion for Subpart D: National Performance
Management Measures for Assessing Bridge Condition
Discussion of Sec. 490.401 Purpose
In Sec. 490.401, FHWA proposes to specify that bridge condition
performance measures are applicable to all NHS bridges covered under
the NHPP. In addition, this section emphasizes that the data used for
the performance measures would need to include all bridges on the NHS
in the State regardless of ownership, maintenance responsibility, or
functional classification.
Discussion of Sec. 490.403 Applicability
In Sec. 490.403, FHWA proposes to specify that the bridge
performance measures are applicable to all NHS bridges including
bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS as defined by 23 U.S.C. 103 and
NHS bridges that cross a State border regardless of ownership or
maintenance responsibility. The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs
coordinate with all relevant bridge owners, such as Federal agencies
that own NHS bridges and other State DOTs that share NHS bridges that
cross State borders, in order to meet the proposed requirements of
subpart A. The FHWA recognizes that this differs from certain
established requirements of the NBIS, such as the NBI data submittal
process under which States are not responsible for Federal- or tribal-
owned bridges. Similar to the proposed requirement in subpart A that
requires coordination between State DOTs and MPOs, it is appropriate
that State DOTs coordinate with all relevant NHS bridge owners for the
proposed bridge condition performance measures and targets in order to
ensure consistency.
Discussion of Sec. 490.405 Definitions
In Sec. 490.405, FHWA proposes to use the definition of ``bridge''
found in the NBIS (23 CFR 650.305) for this subpart. The FHWA
recognizes that States may have differing definitions for ``bridge.''
These discrepancies would cause problems in analyzing collected bridge
data at the national level, and measuring progress toward the national
goal of ``maintaining the highway infrastructure asset system in a
state of good repair.'' The use of an established definition would
continue to provide FHWA consistent and standardized data to be
analyzed for the evaluation of State and national progress in achieving
a state of good repair.
[[Page 374]]
The FHWA also proposes to include a definition for ``Structurally
Deficient'' to identify the population of NHS bridges for determining a
State's percentage of deck area of bridges classified as ``Structurally
Deficient'' and implement the penalty for any State DOT that does not
maintain the minimum condition level established by 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2). ``Structurally Deficient'' is a programmatic term that was
used to administer the Highway Bridge Program. This Program was known
as the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and was
eliminated by MAP-21. It was one of three statuses assigned to a
highway bridge based on an evaluation of NBI data for the purposes of
determining Highway Bridge Program eligibility. The proposed definition
would be the same programmatic definition of ``Structurally Deficient''
that was used under the Highway Bridge Program. It would provide a
continued focus of improving a specific population of bridges through
the penalty and minimum condition level provisions established by 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
Discussion of Sec. 490.407 National Performance Management Measures
for Assessing Bridge Condition
In Sec. 490.407, FHWA proposes the two performance measures to
carry out the NHPP for State DOTs to use to assess bridge condition on
the NHS. The proposed measures are: (1) Percentage of NHS bridges
classified as in Good condition; and (2) Percentage NHS bridges
classified as in Poor condition. These performance measures would be
used to demonstrate how investments of Federal-aid funds are utilized
toward achieving performance targets for all NHS bridges, including
bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS. The NHS is defined in 23 U.S.C.
103.
Discussion of Sec. 490.409 Calculation of National Performance
Management Measures for Assessing Bridge Condition
In Sec. 490.409(a), FHWA proposes the method that would be used to
calculate the bridge measures proposed in Sec. 490.407 and outlines
how FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs would use the bridge measures.
In Sec. 490.409(b), FHWA proposes the source of data and the
method to be used in assigning classification for the condition of
bridges on the NHS, including bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS.
The Good, Fair, and Poor classification of bridges on the NHS utilizes
data elements from the NBI database. State DOTs measure and classify a
number of standard features for bridges in their jurisdiction and then
report them to FHWA on an annual basis. Based on their NBI data, State
DOTs would be required to classify all bridges within a State into one
of the three classifications: Good, Fair, or Poor. These
classifications and their development are consistent with the
conclusions and recommendations of a 2011 FHWA study on the use of
performance management approaches titled, ``Improving FHWA's Ability to
Assess Highway Infrastructure Health.'' \82\ As noted in this study,
there are two basic methods FHWA could use as a basis for developing a
measure to assess bridge condition. The first is a weighted average
method that consists of calculating a measure of structural adequacy
based on a weighted average of the deck, superstructure, and sub-
structure condition ratings of a bridge. The second is the minimum
condition rating method which calculates a measure of structural
adequacy based on the lowest condition rating of deck, superstructure,
and sub-structure of a bridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ ''Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure
Health,'' (https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/46000/46100/46182/Improving_FHWA_s_ability_to_assess_highway_infrastructure_health_Pilot_Study_Rpt.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section also proposes that the condition classification of
Good, Fair, or Poor, be based on a bridge's condition ratings for the
following NBI Items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure,
and 62--Culverts. Various methods for determining the bridge condition
based on these NBI items have been studied by FHWA as well as suggested
by States, including: Each item contributing equally to a final
average; some items contributing more than others to achieve a weighted
average; and the minimum rated item controlling (minimum condition
rating method). In the case of culverts, there is only one item (Item
62--Culvert) to rate, since culverts do not have NBI Items 58, 59, and
60.
The data within FHWA's NBI database, which includes bridge
condition and geometric information, is utilized to determine overall
bridge condition. Data in the NBI database is provided to FHWA by State
DOTs and Federal agencies as required by 23 CFR 650.315. State DOTs are
required to submit NBI data annually in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
144(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D)(ii).
Phases of the previously identified 2011 FHWA study, ``Improving
FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health,'' evaluated
five different methods (four different weighted average methods and one
minimum condition rating method) to assign bridge condition based on
Good, Fair, or Poor ratings. For this study, the NBI database was
selected as the logical data source because of the consistency of its
representation of over 40 years of collected data, and because it is
used by nearly every State DOT as the current basis for their bridge
decisionmaking. The study discussed and evaluated five different
methods (four different weighted average methods and one minimum
condition rating method). The study concluded that for the Interstate
System--
Percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor
were consistent for all methods with little variation;
minimum condition rating method resulted in the highest
percentage of bridges in Poor condition;
percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor
based on the four weighted average methods are not sensitive to the
weights; and
bridge deck conditions alone are not typically the driving
factor in the Good, Fair, or Poor calculations.
The FHWA further assessed the different methods and observed that
the magnitude in differences between condition ratings for individual
NBI items was somewhat nullified when a final average or weighted
average method was employed. This observation was also noted in the
2011 study. The masking or obscuring of possible poor bridge conditions
is a major concern with the final average or weighted average methods.
Although these methods could be further refined, the development,
subjectivity, and complexity of such methods makes them less desirable
than the simple minimum condition rating method, especially since
analyses indicate that a refined weighted method would result in the
same general classification as the minimum condition rating method.
Therefore, FHWA proposes that for each applicable bridge, the
performance measures for determining condition be based on the minimum
value for the following NBI Items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--
Substructure, and 62--Culverts. The FHWA further proposes to weight
this condition by the respective deck area of each bridge and express
condition totals as a percentage of the total deck area of bridges in a
State. The FHWA recognizes that this proposed approach to determining
bridge condition is different from the approach to determining pavement
condition, which is based on a cumulative assessment.
[[Page 375]]
The following flow diagram, Figure 11, provides in visual format
the classification ratings identified in Sec. 490.409(b)(1) through
(3). They are as follows: Sec. 490.409(b)(1) assigns a Good
classification when all of the NBI items are rated as 7 or above; Sec.
490.409(a)(2) identifies Fair classification when any of the NBI items
are rated as 5 or 6; and Sec. 490.409(a)(3) assigns a Poor
classification when any of the NBI items are 4 or less. These
classification ratings are then used to determine the performance
measures identified in Sec. 490.407.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.018
In Sec. 490.409(c), FHWA proposes how to calculate the performance
measures for assessing bridge condition identified in Sec. 490.407.
Using NBI data, the ratio of the total deck area of bridges in a
condition classification to the total deck area of applicable bridges
is calculated. The deck area of a bridge is proposed to be the product
of NBI Items 49--Structure Length, and 52--Deck Width. In the case of a
roadway on fill carried across a pipe(s) or culvert in which headwalls
do not affect the flow of traffic, NBI Item 32--Approach Roadway Width
is utilized instead of Item 52--Deck Width, to calculate the deck area.
The FHWA proposes that this ratio would be calculated by first summing
the total deck area for each of the three classification conditions
(Good, Fair, and Poor) for all applicable bridges. Next, the total deck
area for all of the applicable bridges is calculated. Finally, the
ratio is determined by dividing the total deck area of bridges for a
classification condition by the total deck area for the applicable
bridges. The result would be multiplied by 100 to get the final
percentages for the performance measures (the percent of bridges in a
particular classification). The equation is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.019
[[Page 376]]
In Sec. 490.409(d), FHWA proposes that these measures be used to
establish targets and report targets and condition.
In Sec. 490.409(e), FHWA notes that all of the NBI Items (e.g.,
NBI Item 49--Structure Length, NBI Item 52--Deck Width) listed in this
section are included in the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' which is
incorporated by reference in Sec. 490.111.
Discussion of Sec. 490.411 Establishment of Minimum Level for
Condition for Bridges
In Sec. 490.411(a) through (c), FHWA incorporates the minimum
condition level for bridges on the NHS established by 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2). The minimum condition level is for State DOTs to maintain
bridges so that the percentage of the deck area of bridges on the NHS
classified as Structurally Deficient does not exceed 10 percent. This
minimum is applicable to bridges on the NHS, to bridges on ramps
connecting to the NHS within a State, and to bridges on the NHS that
cross a State border.
The FHWA also proposes the source of data and the method to be used
in assigning a classification of Structurally Deficient to a bridge.
The NBI is the definitive source for national bridge information and
has been used for many years to classify bridges as Structurally
Deficient, determine eligibility for the Highway Bridge Program, and
apportion Federal-aid funds. It is for these reasons the NBI is
proposed to be the source of data for classifying a bridge as
Structurally Deficient.
This section also proposes that the classification of Structurally
Deficient be based on a bridge's condition ratings for the following
NBI Items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, 62--
Culverts, and a bridge's appraisal ratings for NBI Items 67--Structural
Evaluation, and 71--Waterway Adequacy. The proposed method for
classification would be the same method used under the Highway Bridge
Program. This classification methodology is found in the former
Federal-aid Policy Guide Non-Regulatory Supplement, NS 23 CFR, Part 650
D, dated September 30, 1992, Transmittal 5, paragraph 9.a. (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/0650dsup.cfm). This method would provide a
continued focus of improving a specific population of bridges through
the minimum condition level provisions established by 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2).
In order to effectively implement FHWA's determination of State DOT
minimum condition level and assessment of penalty in a timely manner,
FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.411(d) to make minimum condition level
determinations for NHS bridges on an annual basis. These determinations
would be based on data cleared in the NBI as of June 15 of each year.
Under the NBIS, State DOTs are allowed up to 90 days after the date of
inspection to enter Structure Inventory and Appraisal data into their
inventory for State DOT bridges. For all other bridges, they are
allowed up to 180 days. This time is needed for data processing, data
quality management, data analysis, and other required business
processes necessary to report quality data. Based on previous
experiences with data management, FHWA anticipates State DOTs will need
90 days after submitting their inventory to the NBI to conduct checks
to ensure data quality and completeness. Additionally, sufficient time
is needed for FHWA's minimum condition level determination, for State
DOT notification, and for FHWA to issue any resulting penalties so that
they are effective by the beginning of the next fiscal year. After FHWA
makes its compliance determination, it would notify all State DOTs of
its determination prior to October 1 of the year in which the
determination was made.
Thus, FHWA proposes in Sec. 490.411(e) that the State DOTs submit
their most current NBI data on highway bridges to FHWA no later than
March 15 of each year. The FHWA recognizes that this is change from the
practice of submitting NBI data every April 1; however, this change
would allow for sufficient time to make a timely and accurate minimum
condition determination.
The FHWA estimates that less than 1 percent of all bridges on the
NHS are on Federal or tribal lands. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to
consult and coordinate with all relevant entities (e.g., Federal Land
Management Agencies, tribal governments) so that NBI data for NHS
bridges on Federal or tribal lands within a State's boundaries can be
provided and considered when FHWA determines whether a State DOT has
complied with the minimum condition requirements. Understanding this
potential impact, FHWA is seeking comment from State DOTs on the
proposal to implement the 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) minimum condition
requirements.
The determination of compliance with the minimum condition
requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) would be carried out by
FHWA for fiscal year 2017 and annually thereafter. This timing is based
on an assessment of minimum condition compliance NBI data submitted in
2014, 2015, and 2016. Following this implementation schedule, any
penalties resulting from the minimum condition compliance determination
would not be in effect until FY 2017 or by October 1, 2016.
In Sec. 490.411(f), FHWA notes that all of the NBI Items (e.g.,
NBI Item 49--Structure Length, NBI Item 52--Deck Width) listed in this
section are included in the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges'', which is
incorporated by reference in 490.111.
Discussion of Sec. 490.413 Penalties for Not Maintaining Bridge
Condition
In Sec. 490.413, FHWA incorporates into the proposed regulation
the penalty for any State DOT that does not maintain the minimum
condition level established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). The proposed
section generally describes the minimum condition requirement and the
consequences when a State fails to comply with those requirements.
In order to assess State DOT compliance with the minimum condition,
for the 3-year period preceding the date of the determination, FHWA
would evaluate annually whether more than 10.0 percent of the total
deck area of NHS bridges in the State have been classified as
structurally deficient. If more than 10 percent of the total deck area
of NHS bridges in the State are classified as structurally deficient
for the 3-year period preceding the date of determination, then the
State would need to comply with the proposed 490.413, which
incorporates the requirements found in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
Under this proposal, States that do not meet the minimum condition
requirements would be required to obligate a set aside amount equal to
50 percent of the funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2009
to carry out the Highway Bridge Program, 23 U.S.C. 144, (as in effect
on the day before enactment of MAP-21) from the amounts apportioned to
a State for a fiscal year under section 104(b)(1) (the NHPP) only for
eligible NHS bridge projects. The day before enactment of MAP-21, 23
U.S.C. 144 contained the requirements for the Highway Bridge Program.
The FHWA is proposing to require an obligation of a set-aside of
certain NHPP funds during the fiscal year following the determination.
While 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) only references set-aside, FHWA is proposing
that set aside funds be obligated in order to implement the set aside
requirement consistent with congressional treatment to address
[[Page 377]]
Interstate Pavement Condition, which requires, in part, an obligation
of certain NHPP funds if the State does not meet the minimum pavement
condition requirements. The FHWA also proposes that the bridge minimum
condition penalty would take effect during the fiscal year following
the FHWA's determination.
A set aside is derived from a funding category and results in a
portion of that funding being segregated and dedicated for a specific
purpose (the set aside implementing this provision would be segregated
from NHPP funds and dedicated to addressing NHS bridge conditions).
Dedication to address bridge condition requires timely obligation. An
obligation is considered a contractual commitment, which evidences the
commitment of funds for the specific purpose. Pursuant to authority
under 23 U.S.C. 315 and after taking into account the heading of 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(A) indicating that this provision is a ``penalty,''
FHWA believes it would be appropriate to require both a set aside and
obligation of NHPP funds. Implementation of the requirement in this
manner would cause the States not to lose funds but, States would be
required to timely obligate the set aside funds to address NHS bridge
condition. Thus the States subject to this requirement would lose some
flexibility with NHPP funds when the funds are obligated to address the
bridge deficiencies. A requirement to obligate, in addition to set
aside, NHPP funds would result in funding dedicated to improving NHS
bridges. In addition, FHWA believes it is appropriate to specify the
timing as to when the provision would take effect; otherwise the
provision would have little meaning.
Both of these requirements would be consistent with the minimum
Interstate pavement condition penalty in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A), which
requires an obligation of certain funds within a specific time period.
To require different outcomes with respect to funding for pavement
minimum condition and bridge minimum condition, when the purpose of
both provisions is essentially the same (to require funding to be
directed to improve condition), would seem to place a priority on
pavement condition over bridge condition with no rationale to support
the disparate treatment. This consistency in application of the penalty
provisions is also important as pavement and bridge condition are both
part of the NHPP program. The FHWA does not believe that prioritizing
pavement condition over bridge condition is consistent with the
national goal in 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(2) of maintaining all infrastructure
assets in a state of good repair.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(B), the requirement specified in 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(A) remains in effect until less than 10.0 percent of
the total deck area of the States' NHS bridges is located on bridges
that have been classified as structurally deficient. The FHWA is
proposing to implement this restoration requirement by making annual
determinations of compliance.
As proposed in Sec. 490.413(b), the determination of compliance
with the minimum condition requirements specified in 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(2) would be carried out by FHWA in 2016 and annually thereafter.
This timing is based on an assessment of minimum condition compliance
with NBI data submitted in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Following this
implementation schedule, any penalties resulting from the minimum
condition compliance determination would not be in effect until FY
2017, or after October 1, 2016. State DOTs have been and currently are
submitting the necessary NBI data to FHWA. As such, FHWA will have the
data to make an annual determination of compliance beginning in
2016.\83\ A proposed application of this NHPP minimum condition penalty
is provided in the docket along with an example of its application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Questions and Answer 2 on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qabridges.cfm), posted on 9/25/2012,
provides information on the 3-year period that will be used for the
first determination of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. 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 address noted in the above
ADDRESSES section. Comments received after the comment closing date
will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent
practicable. A final rule may be published at any time after close of
the comment period.
Please note that the proposed regulatory text that is presented
below builds on, but is separate from, the regulatory text proposed in
the FHWA's first Performance Measure NPRM published in the Federal
Register. The regulatory text proposed in that first NPRM is included
in the docket. Comments on that NPRM should be submitted in accordance
with the instructions contained in that NPRM (docket number USDOT-2013-
0020). When the three Performance Management rulemakings are completed,
the combined regulatory text from each of the three rules will
represent the entirety of 23 CFR part 490.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule constitutes an
economically significant regulatory action within the meaning of
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and within the meaning of the DOT
regulatory policies and procedures. This action complies with E.O.s
12866 and 13563. This action is considered ``economically significant''
because this rulemaking will result in the 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 has filed into the docket a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (regulatory analysis or RIA) in support of the NPRM on
National Performance Measures for Assessing Pavement and Bridge
Conditions. The regulatory analysis estimates 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
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563, but does not currently attempt to directly
quantify the changes from the improved decisionmaking. The economic
impacts are measured on an incremental basis, relative to current
pavement and bridge condition reporting practices.
This section of the NPRM identifies the estimated costs and
benefits resulting from the proposed 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 (docket
number FHWA-2013-0053).
The cornerstone of MAP-21's transformation of the highway program
is the transition to a performance-based program. In accordance with
the law, State DOTs would invest resources in projects to achieve
performance targets that make progress toward national goals areas. The
national performance goal area established for infrastructure condition
is to maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of
good repair. In order to carry out this mandate, MAP-21 requires FHWA
to promulgate a rule to establish pavement and bridge condition
performance measures and standards. As required by
[[Page 378]]
MAP-21, this NPRM identifies the following pavement and bridge
performance measures for which State DOTs and MPOs must collect and
report data, establish targets for performance, and make progress
toward achievement of targets:
1. Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good
condition;
2. Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Poor
condition;
3. Percentage of lane-miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Good
condition;
4. Percentage of lane-miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor
condition;
5. Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition; and
6. Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition.
Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule
To estimate costs for the proposed rule, FHWA assessed the level of
effort, expressed in labor hours and the labor categories, and capital
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 7 displays the total cost of the proposed rule for the 10-
year study period (2015-2024). Total costs are estimated to be $196.4
million undiscounted, $149.1 million discounted at 7 percent, and
$173.2 million discounted at 3 percent. The costs in the table assume a
portion of MPOs, approximately half of the estimated 420 MPOs, would
establish their own targets and a portion would adopt State DOT
targets. It is assumed that State DOTs and MPOs serving TMAs \84\ would
use staff to establish performance targets and MPOs not serving a TMA
would agree to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward
the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT targets and would
therefore not incur any incremental costs. There are currently an
estimated 210 MPOs serving TMAs. The FHWA made this assumption because
larger MPOs may have more resources available to develop performance
targets. The FHWA believes that this is a conservative estimate as
larger MPOs may elect not to establish their own targets for any
variety of reasons, including resource availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ A TMA is an urbanized area having a population of over
200,000 or otherwise requested by the Governor and the MPO and
officially designated by FHWA or FTA. 23 U.S.C. 134(k).
Table 7--Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-yr Total cost
Cost components --------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 490.105-109--General Information, Target $93,283,261 $64,861,869 $79,297,035
Establishment, Reporting on Progress, and Making
Significant Progress..................................
Establish and Update Performance Targets........... 39,198,632 28,462,495 33,931,374
Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving 1,122,098 703,058 913,432
Performance Targets...............................
Reporting on Performance Targets Progress.......... 52,962,531 35,696,316 44,452,229
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Interstate IRI, 30,712,622 23,081,249 26,984,444
Rutting, and Faulting.................................
Data Collection: IRI measurement in both directions 24,283,997 18,249,988 21,336,184
Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting.. 489,800 368,096 430,344
Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting. 979,600 736,192 860,687
Data processing costs: Additional IRI data......... 1,653,075 1,242,324 1,452,410
Data processing costs: Additional rutting data..... 1,836,750 1,380,360 1,613,789
Data processing costs: Additional faulting data.... 1,469,400 1,104,288 1,291,031
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Interstate Cracking 15,225,866 11,872,243 13,587,510
Fully Automated State DOTs: Additional Data Quality 1,224,500 920,240 1,075,859
Control Costs.....................................
Semi-Automated State DOTs: Additional Data 4,006,853 3,011,243 3,520,464
Processing & Quality Control Costs................
Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting: 1,729,138 1,729,138 1,729,138
Training costs to adopt automated methods.........
Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting: Data 8,265,375 6,211,622 7,262,049
quality control costs.............................
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Non-Interstate NHS 5,616,835 4,050,700 4,855,720
IRI, Rutting, and Faulting............................
Data Collection costs: Increase IRI Measurement to 395,566 285,271 341,965
Cover 100 percent of non-interstate NHS miles.....
Data processing costs: Additional rutting and 636,740 459,199 550,458
faulting data collected...........................
Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting.. 2,546,960 1,836,795 2,201,832
Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting. 2,037,568 1,469,436 1,761,466
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Non-Interstate NHS 4,040,850 2,914,145 3,493,291
Cracking..............................................
Additional data quality control costs for new data 4,040,850 2,914,145 3,493,291
collection........................................
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Capital Costs...... 16,600,000 15,891,841 16,254,041
Profiler........................................... 9,100,000 8,391,841 8,754,041
Faulting Software.................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Cracking Video Equipment and Software Purchase..... 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000
Section 490.313--Calculation of performance management 8,242,259 7,785,869 8,019,297
measures..............................................
Reprogramming of software to allow Performance 6,405,509 6,405,509 6,405,509
Calculations......................................
FHWA's Management of Data Submissions.............. 244,900 184,048 215,172
Filtering out Bridge Pavement from Pavement Data... 1,591,850 1,196,312 1,398,617
Section 490.319--Other Requirements.................... 15,962,695 12,007,317 14,030,362
Develop a Quality Management Program............... 44,194 44,194 44,194
Run New Quality Management Program................. 3,061,250 2,300,601 2,689,648
Improve Quality Management Program................. 12,857,251 9,662,522 11,296,520
Section 490.407--Calculation of bridge performance 6,759,061 6,671,211 6,716,144
measures..............................................
Update Software to generate good/fair/poor 6,405,509 6,405,509 6,405,509
condition.........................................
FHWA's Management of Data Submissions.............. 353,552 265,703 310,635
--------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 379]]
Total Cost of Proposed Rule........................ 196,443,449 149,136,445 173,237,846
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Break-Even Analysis
Currently, State DOTs differ from State to State in the way they
measure the condition of their pavement. We do not believe their
current methods are inadequate, but the methods are inconsistent and
these differences hinder accurate analysis of infrastructure conditions
at the national level. The proposed rulemaking would establish uniform
condition measures for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP to assess
condition of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System),
condition of pavements on the Interstate System, and condition of
bridges on the NHS. In addition, the rule would establish processes
that: (1) State DOTs and MPOs use to report measures and establish
performance targets, and (2) FHWA uses to assess progress that State
DOTs have made toward achieving targets.
Upon implementation, FHWA expects that the proposed rule would
result in certain benefits. Specifically, the proposed rule would allow
for more informed decisionmaking on bridge and pavement condition-
related project, program, and policy choices. The proposed rule also
would yield greater accountability because the MAP-21-mandated
reporting would increase visibility and transparency. In addition, the
proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway program on
achieving balanced performance outcomes.
These benefits resulting from the proposed rule (i.e., more
informed decisionmaking, greater accountability, and greater focus on
making progress toward the national goal for infrastructure condition)
would lead to improved pavement and bridge conditions. The benefits
resulting from performance measurement, while real and substantial, are
difficult to monetize. For this proposed rule, FHWA quantified these
benefits of the proposed rule by performing break-even analyses as
described in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4. A break-even
analysis calculates the threshold a specific variable must achieve in
order for benefits to equal costs, holding every other variable in the
analysis constant. For both pavements and bridges, FHWA focused its
break-even analyses on VOCs savings because users typically garner the
greatest concentration of benefits from transportation projects. The
DOT estimated the number of road miles of deficient pavement that would
have to be improved and the number of posted bridges that would have to
be avoided in order for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs.
Table 8 presents the results from the pavement break-even analysis.
The results represent the savings in VOC to automobile and truck
drivers from pavement conditions that are improved from Poor to Good.
The analysis shows that the proposed rule would need to result in the
net improvement of approximately 435 miles of pavement (i.e., to Good
condition) per year, or 4,350 miles over 10 years, that would otherwise
not have been improved without the proposed rule. The annual break-even
point represents approximately 1.9 percent of the NHS miles currently
estimated to be in poor condition. Based on recent trends in improving
road condition, FHWA believes improving 435 miles of pavement per year
or 4,350 miles over 10 years as a result of this rule is achievable.
Using a related benchmark as a point of reference, between 2000 and
2010, the percentage of VMT on NHS pavements with ``Good'' ride quality
increased from 48 percent to 60 percent. On average, this is equivalent
to a 1.2 percent increase in improved VMT per year.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. 2013 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions & Performance Report to Congress. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/pdfs/littlebook.pdf.
Table 8--Break-Even Improvement of Pavement Conditions (Improved From Poor)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
Annual improved Annual poor VMT Percent of poor Current NHS miles number of poor
from poor VMT (total VMT * VMT needing estimated to be NHS miles needing
needed 4.9%) improvement in poor improvement from
condition poor
a b c = a / b d e = c * d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance.............................................. 7,398,564,204 79,778,275,896 9.24% 22,827 2,109
Fuel..................................................... 1,946,081,966 79,778,275,896 2.43% 22,827 555
Tires.................................................... 175,596,118,543 79,778,275,896 219.25% 22,827 50,049
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 1,527,395,633 79,778,275,896 1.91% 22,827 435
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
Table 9 presents the results from the bridge break-even analysis
which calculates the number of year-long bridge postings that would
need to be reduced as a result of the proposed rule in order for the
benefits of the bridge condition requirements to justify the costs. The
FHWA estimated the average cost per year of a bridge posting (column E
in Table 9). With the undiscounted cost of the bridge requirements and
this average cost of a bridge posting, the analysis estimates the
number of year-long bridge postings that need to be avoided in order to
make
[[Page 380]]
the benefits of the proposed rule justify the cost. The break-even
analysis estimates that 2 year-long bridge postings need to be avoided
over 10 years in order for benefits to justify costs. As a basis for
comparison, NBI data indicate that currently there are approximately 85
NHS bridges posted for trucks. Over the 10 year period of 2003-2012 the
number of NHS bridges posted for truck declined from 145 to 85. Trends
in the United States demonstrated by bridge owners provide evidence
that posted bridges receive priority consideration in work schedules.
With the increased performance requirements of this rule, it is
reasonable to assume that at a minimum, a reduction in the posted load
limit of one bridge annually nationwide would be achieved to provide
the needed benefit to justify the costs of complying with this rule.
Table 9--Break-Even Bridge Detours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Equivalent
Average distance Average number of year- Annual number of
Undiscounted 10 year cost of proposed bridge truck user per cost of Average cost per year of each long posts year-long posts that
rule cost per detour detour per bridge posting that need to need to be avoided
VMT (miles) trucks be avoided
a b c d = b x c e = d * 1,940 ADT * 365.25 f = a / e g = f / 10 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$53,400,692.................................... $1.69 20 $33.82 $23,964,028 2 0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
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 action on
small entities and has determined that the action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule affects State governments and MPOs. State DOTs are
not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C.
601. 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 TMAs, which generally have
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.
Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and I
hereby certify that the proposed action would not have a significant
economic 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
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 E.O. 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)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing E.O.
12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and
has determined that this proposal contains collection of information
requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
This proposed rule provides definitions and outlines processes for
bridge and pavement performance measures and reporting. Some burdens in
this proposed rule would be realized in other reporting areas as
described below. The PRA activities that are already covered by
existing OMB Clearances have reference numbers for those clearances as
follows: HPMS information collection, OMB No. 2125-0028 with an
expiration of June 30, 2015; and National Bridge Inventory, OMB No.
2125-0501 with an expiration date of December 31, 2014. Any increase in
PRA burdens caused by MAP-21 in these areas will be addressed in PRA
approval requests associated with those collections.
This rulemaking requires the submittal of biennial performance
reports. The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and has
determined the following:
Respondents: Approximately 262 applicants consisting of States and
MPOs.
Frequency: Biennially.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 416 hours to
complete and submit the report.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Approximately 54,496 hours
annually.
The FHWA invites interested persons to submit comments on any
aspect of the information collection. Comments submitted on the
information collection proposed in this NPRM will be summarized or
included, or both, in the request for OMB approval of this information
collection.
[[Page 381]]
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), which covers the promulgation of
regulations.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 E.O. 12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminates
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 E.O.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 12898 (Environmental Justice)
The E.O. 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 proposed rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 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 E.O. 13211 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.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number 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 regulation identification 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
recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Acting Administrator, FHWA Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR
part 490, as proposed to be added at 79 FR 13846, March 11, 2014, as
follows:
PART 490--NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES
0
1. The authority citation for part 490 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i), and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.
0
2. Revise subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A--General Information
Sec.
490.101 Definitions
490.103 Data Requirements
490.105 Establishment of Performance Targets
490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets
490.109 Assessing Significant Progress toward Achieving the
Performance Targets for the National Highway Performance Program
490.111 Incorporation by reference
Sec. 490.101 Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply to the
entire part 490:
Full Extent means continuous collection and evaluation of pavement
condition data over the entire length of the roadway.
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.
Mainline highways means the through travel lanes of any highway.
Mainline highways specifically exclude ramps, shoulders, turn lanes,
crossovers, rest areas, and other pavement surfaces that are not part
of the roadway normally travelled by through traffic.
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.
National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is an FHWA database containing
bridge information and inspection data for all highway bridges on
public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally owned
and federally owned bridges, that are subject to the National Bridge
Inspection Standards (NBIS).
Non-Urbanized Area means any geographic area that is not an
``urbanized area'' under either 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34).
Performance period means a determined time period during which
condition/performance is measured and evaluated to: (1) Assess
condition/performance with respect to baseline condition/performance;
and (2) track progress toward the achievement of the targets that
represent the intended condition/performance level at the midpoint and
at the end of that time period. The term ``performance period'' applies
to all proposed measures in this Part, except the measures proposed for
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in Subpart B. Each
performance period covers a 4-year duration beginning on a specified
date (provided in Sec. 490.105).
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.
[[Page 382]]
Sec. 490.103 Data requirements.
(a) In general. Unless otherwise noted below, the data requirements
in this section applies to the measures identified in Subparts B-C.
Additional data requirements for specific performance management
measures are identified in 23 CFRs--
(1) 490.309 for the condition of pavements on the Interstate
System;
(2) 490.309 for the condition of pavements on the non-Interstate
NHS;
(3) 490.409 for the condition of bridges on the NHS;
(4) [Reserved].
(b) Urbanized area data. The State DOTs shall submit urbanized area
data, including boundaries of urbanized areas, in accordance with the
HPMS Field Manual for the purpose of the additional targets for
urbanized and non-urbanized areas in Sec. 490.105(e) and IRI rating
determination in Sec. 490.313(b)(1). The boundaries of urbanized areas
shall be identified based on the most recent U.S. Decennial Census,
unless FHWA approves adjustments to the urbanized area as provided by
23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34), and these adjustments are submitted to HPMS,
available at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
(c) [Reserved].
(d) National Highway System data. The State DOTs shall document and
submit the extent of the NHS in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual.
Sec. 490.105 Establishment of performance targets.
(a) In general. State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs)
shall establish performance targets for all measures specified in
paragraph (c) of this section for respective target scope identified in
paragraph (d) with the requirements specified in paragraph (e) of this
section, and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) shall
establish performance targets for all measures specified in paragraph
(c) for respective target scope identified in paragraph (d) of this
section with the requirements specified in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(b) Highway Safety Improvement Program measures. State DOTs and
MPOs shall establish performance targets for the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) measures in accordance with Sec. 490.209.
(c) Applicable measures. State DOTs and MPOs that include, within
their respective geographic boundaries, any portion of the applicable
transportation network shall establish performance targets for the
performance measures identified in 23 CFRs--
(1) 490.307(a)(1) and (2) for the condition of pavements on the
Interstate System;
(2) 490.307(a)(3) and (4) for the condition of pavements on the
National Highway System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate); and
(3) 490.407(c)(1) and (2) for the condition of bridges on the NHS.
(d) Target scope. Targets established by the State DOT and MPO
shall, regardless of ownership, represent the transportation network,
including bridges that cross State borders, that are applicable to the
measures as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2).
(1) State DOTs and MPOs shall establish Statewide and metropolitan
planning areawide targets, respectively, that represent the condition/
performance of the transportation network that is applicable to the
measure, as specified in 23 CFR--
(i) 490.303 for the condition of pavements on the Interstate
System;
(ii) 490.303 for the condition of pavements on the non-Interstate
NHS; and
(iii) 490.403 for the condition of bridges on the NHS.
(2) [Reserved].
(3) For the purpose of target establishment in this section,
reporting targets and progress evaluation in Sec. 490.107 and
significant progress determination in Sec. 490.109, State DOTs shall
declare and describe the NHS limits and urbanized area boundaries
within the State boundary in the Baseline Performance Period Report
required by Sec. 490.107(b)(1). Any changes in NHS limits or urbanized
area boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for
until the following performance period.
(e) State DOT target setting. State DOTs shall establish targets
for each of the performance measures identified in paragraph (c) of
this section for respective target scope identified in paragraph (d) of
this section as follows:
(1) Schedule. State DOTs shall establish targets not later than 1
year of the effective date of this rule and for each performance period
thereafter, in a manner that allows for the time needed to meet the
requirements specified in this section and so that the final targets
are submitted to FHWA by the due date provided in Sec. 490.107(b).
(2) Coordination. State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs on
the selection of targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent
practicable.
(3) Additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. In
addition to statewide targets, described in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, State DOTs may, as appropriate, for each statewide target
establish additional targets for portions of the State.
(i) A State DOT shall declare and describe in the Baseline
Performance Period Report required by Sec. 490.107(b)(1) the
boundaries used to establish each additional target. Any changes in
boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for until
the following performance period.
(ii) State DOTs may select any number and combination of urbanized
area boundaries and may also select a non-urbanized area boundary for
the establishment of additional targets.
(iii) The boundaries used by the State DOT for additional targets
shall be contained within the geographic boundary of the State and
available to the FHWA.
(iv) State DOTs shall evaluate separately the progress of each
additional target and report that progress as required under Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B).
(4) Time horizon for targets. State DOTs shall establish targets
for a performance period as follows:
(i) The performance period will begin on:
(A) January 1 of the year in which the Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA and will extend for a duration of 4 years for the
measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section; and
(B) [Reserved].
(ii) The midpoint of a performance period will occur 2 years after
the beginning of a performance period described in paragraph (e)(4)(i)
of this section.
(iii) State DOTs shall establish 2-year targets that reflect the
anticipated condition/performance level at the midpoint of each
performance period.
(iv) State DOTs shall establish 4-year targets that reflect the
anticipated condition/performance level at the end of each performance
period.
(5) Reporting. State DOTs shall report 2-year targets, 4-year
targets, the basis for each established target, progress made toward
the achievement of targets, and other requirements to FHWA in
accordance with Sec. 490.107, and the State DOTs shall provide
relevant MPO(s) targets to FHWA, upon request, each time the relevant
MPOs establish or adjust MPO targets, as described in paragraph (f) of
this section.
(6) Target adjustment. State DOTs may adjust an established 4-year
target
[[Page 383]]
in the Mid Performance Period Progress Report, as described in Sec.
490.107(b)(2).
(7) Phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement
condition measures. The following requirements apply only to the first
performance period and the measures in Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and (2):
(i) State DOTs shall establish their 4-year targets, required under
paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section, and report these targets in their
Baseline Performance Period Report, required under Sec. 490.107(b)(1);
(ii) State DOTs shall not report 2-year targets, described in
paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section, and baseline condition/
performance in their Baseline Performance Period Report; and
(iii) State DOTs shall update the baseline condition/performance in
their Baseline Performance Period Report, with the 2-year condition/
performance in their Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described
in Sec. 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). State DOTs may also adjust their 4-year
targets, as appropriate.
(f) MPO target setting. The MPOs shall establish targets for each
of the performance measures identified in paragraph (c) of this section
for respective target scope identified in paragraph (d) of this section
as follows:
(1) Schedule. The MPOs shall establish targets no later than 180
days after the respective State DOT(s) establishes their targets,
described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(i) The MPOs shall establish 4-year targets, described in paragraph
(e)(4)(iv) of this section, for all applicable measures, described in
paragraphs (c)-(d) of this section.
(ii) Reserved.
(2) Coordination. The MPOs shall coordinate with relevant State
DOT(s) on the selection of targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent
practicable.
(3) Time horizon for targets. The MPOs shall establish 4-year
targets that reflect the anticipated condition/performance level at the
end of each performance period, described in paragraph (e)(4) of this
section. The MPOs are not required to establish 2-year targets.
(4) Target establishment options. The MPOs shall establish targets
by either:
(i) Agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute
toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT targets; or
(ii) Committing to quantifiable targets for their metropolitan
planning area.
(5) [Reserved].
(6) [Reserved].
(7) MPO response to State DOT target adjustment. If the State DOT
adjusts a 4-year target in the State DOT's Mid Performance Period
Progress Report and if, for this respective target, the MPO established
a target by supporting the State DOT target as allowed under paragraph
(f)(4)(i) of this section, then the MPO shall, within 180 days, report
to the State DOT whether they will either:
(i) Agree to plan a program of projects so that they contribute to
the adjusted State DOT target; or
(ii) Commit to a new quantifiable target for its metropolitan
planning area.
(8) Target adjustment.-- If the MPO establishes its target by
committing to a quantifiable target, described in paragraph (f)(4)(ii)
of this section, then the MPOs may adjust its target(s) in a manner
that is agreed upon and documented in the metropolitan planning
agreement in accordance with part 450 of this chapter.
(9) Reporting.--The MPOs shall report targets and progress toward
the achievement of their targets as specified in Sec. 490.107(c).
After the MPOs establish or adjust their targets, the relevant State
DOT(s) must be able to provide these targets to FHWA, upon request.
Sec. 490.107 Reporting on performance targets.
(a) In general. All State DOTs and MPOs shall report the
information specified in this section for the targets required in Sec.
490.105.
(1) All State DOTs and MPOs shall report in accordance with the
schedule and content requirements under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, respectively.
(2) For the measures identified in Sec. 490.207(a), all State DOTs
and MPO shall report on performance in accordance with Sec. 490.213.
(3) State DOTs shall report using an electronic template provided
by FHWA.
(b) State Biennial Performance Report. State DOTs shall report to
FHWA baseline condition/performance at the beginning of a performance
period and progress achievement at both the midpoint and end of a
performance period. State DOTs shall report at an ongoing 2-year
frequency as specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this
section.
(1) Baseline Performance Period Report-- (i) Schedule. State DOTs
shall submit a Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1
of the first year in a performance period. State DOTs shall submit
their first Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1,
2016, and subsequent Baseline Performance Period Reports to FHWA by
October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
(ii) Content. The State DOT shall report the following information
in each Baseline Performance Period Report:
(A) Targets. Two-year and 4-year targets for the performance
period, as required in Sec. 490.105(e), and a discussion, to the
maximum extent practicable, of the basis for each established target;
(B) Baseline condition/performance, Baseline condition/performance
derived from the latest data collected through the begin date of the
performance period specified in Sec. 490.105(e)(4) for each target,
required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
(C) Relationship with other performance expectations. A discussion,
to the maximum extent practicable, on how the established targets in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section support expectations documented
in longer range plans, such as the State asset management plan required
by 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and the long-range statewide transportation plan
provided in part 450 of this chapter;
(D) Urbanized area boundaries and population data for targets. For
the purpose of determining target scope in Sec. 490.105(d),
determining IRI rating in Sec. 490.313(b)(1), and establishing
additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas in Sec.
490.105(e)(3), State DOTs shall document the boundary extent for all
applicable urbanized areas and the latest Decennial Census population
data, based on information in HPMS;
(E) NHS limits for targets. For the purpose of determining target
scope in Sec. 490.105(d), State DOTs shall document the extent of the
NHS, based on information in the HPMS.
(2) Mid Performance Period Progress Report--(i) Schedule.--State
DOTs shall submit a Mid Performance Period Progress Report to FHWA by
October 1 of the third year in a performance period. State DOTs shall
submit their first Mid Performance Period Progress Report to FHWA by
October 1, 2018, and subsequent Mid Performance Period Progress Reports
to FHWA by October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
(ii) Content. The State DOT shall report the following information
in each Mid Performance Period Progress Report:
(A) Two-year condition/performance. The actual condition/
performance derived from the latest data collected through the midpoint
of the performance period, specified in Sec. 490.105(e)(4), for each
State DOT
[[Page 384]]
reported target required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
(B) Two-year progress in achieving performance targets. A
discussion of the State DOT's progress toward achieving each
established 2-year target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
The State DOT shall compare the actual 2-year condition/performance in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, within the boundaries and
limits documented in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E) of this section,
with the respective 2-year target and document in the discussion any
reasons for differences in the actual and target values;
(C) Investment strategy discussion. A discussion on the
effectiveness of the investment strategies developed and documented in
the State asset management plan for the NHS required under 23 U.S.C.
119(e);
(D) [Reserved];
(E) Target adjustment discussion. When applicable, a State DOT may
submit an adjusted 4-year target to replace an established 4-year
target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. If the State DOT
adjusts its target, it shall include a discussion on the basis for the
adjustment and how the adjusted target supports expectations documented
in longer range plans, such as the State asset management plan and the
long-range statewide transportation plan. The State DOT may only adjust
a 4-year target at the midpoint and by reporting the change in the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report.
(F) Two-year significant progress discussion for the National
Highway Performance Program (NHPP) targets. State DOTs shall discuss
the progress they have made toward the achievement of all 2-year
targets established for the NHPP measures in Sec. 490.105(c)(1)
through (3). This discussion should document a summary of prior
accomplishments and planned activities that will be conducted during
the remainder of the Performance Period to make significant progress
toward that achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP measures;
(G) Extenuating Circumstances discussion on NHPP 2-year targets.
When applicable, a State DOT may include a discussion on the
extenuating circumstance(s), described in Sec. 490.109(e)(5), beyond
the State DOT's control that prevented the State DOT from making 2-year
significant progress toward achieving NHPP target(s) in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(F) of this section; and
(H) NHPP Target Achievement Discussion. If FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement of
NHPP targets in two consecutive biennial FHWA determinations, then the
State DOT shall include a description of the actions they will
undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required under Sec.
490.109(f). If FHWA determines under Sec. 490.109(e) that the State
DOT has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does not need
to include this description.
(3) Full Performance Period Progress Report--(i) Schedule.--State
DOTs shall submit a progress report on the full performance period to
FHWA by October 1 of the first year following the reference performance
period. State DOTs shall submit their first Full Performance Period
Progress Report to FHWA by October 1, 2020, and subsequent Full
Performance Period Progress Reports to FHWA by October 1 every 4 years
thereafter.
(ii) Content. The State DOT shall report the following information
for each Full Performance Period Progress Report:
(A) Four-year condition/performance. The actual condition/
performance derived from the latest data collected through the end of
the Performance Period, specified in Sec. 490.105(e)(4), for each
State DOT reported target required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section;
(B) Four-year progress in achieving performance targets. A
discussion of State DOT's progress made toward achieving each
established 4-year target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (E) of this
section, when applicable. The State DOT shall compare the actual 4-year
condition/performance in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section,
within the boundaries and limits documented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D)
and (E) of this section, with the respective 4-year target and document
in the discussion any reasons for differences in the actual and target
values;
(C) Investment strategy discussion. A discussion on the
effectiveness of the investment strategies developed and documented in
the State asset management plan for the NHS required under 23 U.S.C.
119(e);
(D) [Reserved];
(E) Four-year significant progress evaluation for NHPP targets.--
State DOTs shall discuss the progress they have made toward the
achievement of all 4-year targets established for the NHPP measures in
Sec. 490.105(c)(1) through (3). This discussion shall include a
summary of accomplishments achieved during the Performance Period to
demonstrate whether the State DOT has made significant progress toward
achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP measures.
(F) Extenuating circumstances discussion on NHPP targets. When
applicable, a State DOT may include discussion on the extenuating
circumstance(s), described in Sec. 490.109(e)(5), beyond the State
DOT's control that prevented the State DOT from making a 4-year
significant progress toward achieving NHPP targets, described in
paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E) of this section; and
(G) NHPP target achievement discussion. If FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement of
NHPP targets in two consecutive biennial FHWA determinations, then the
State DOT shall include a description of the actions they will
undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required under Sec.
490.109(f). If FHWA determines in Sec. 490.109(e) that the State DOT
has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to
include this description.
(c) MPO report. MPOs shall establish targets in accordance with
Sec. 490.105 and report targets and progress toward the achievement of
their targets in a manner that is consistent with the following:
(1) The MPOs shall report their established 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 part 450 of this chapter.
(2) The MPOs shall report baseline condition/performance and
progress toward the achievement of their targets in the system
performance report in the metropolitan transportation plan in
accordance with part 450 of this chapter.
Sec. 490.109 Assessing significant progress toward achieving the
performance targets for the National Highway Performance Program.
(a) In general. The FHWA will assess each of the State DOT targets
separately for the NHPP measures specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(1)
through (3) to determine the significant progress made toward the
achievement of those targets.
(b) Frequency. The FHWA will determine whether a State DOT has or
has not made significant progress toward the achievement of NHPP
targets as described in paragraph (e) of this section at the midpoint
and the end of each performance period.
(c) Schedule. The FHWA will determine significant progress toward
the achievement of a State DOT's NHPP targets after the State DOT
submits the Mid Performance Period Progress Report
[[Page 385]]
for progress toward the achievement of 2-year targets, and again after
the State DOT submits the Full Performance Period Progress Report for
progress toward the achievement of 4-year targets. The FHWA will notify
State DOTs of the outcome of the determination of the State DOT's
ability to make significant progress toward the achievement of its NHPP
targets.
(d) Source of data/information. The FHWA will use the following
sources of information to assess NHPP condition and performance
progress:
(1) Data contained within the HPMS on June 15 of the year in which
the significant progress determination is made that represents
conditions from the prior year for targets established for Interstate
System pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec.
490.105(c)(1);
(2) Data contained within the HPMS on August 15 of the year in
which the significant progress determination is made that represents
conditions from the prior year for targets established for non-
Interstate NHS pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec.
490.105(c)(2);
(3) The most recently available data contained within the NBI as of
June 15 of the year in which the significant progress determination is
made for targets established for NHS bridge condition measures, as
specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(3); and
(4) The urbanized area boundary and NHS limit data in the HPMS as
documented in the Baseline Period Performance Report specified in Sec.
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E).
(e) Significant progress determination for individual NHPP
targets--(1) In general. The FHWA will biennially assess whether the
State DOT has achieved or made significant progress towards each target
established by the State DOT for the NHPP measures described in Sec.
490.105(c)(1) and (3). The FHWA will assess the significant progress of
each statewide target separately using the condition/performance data/
information sources described in paragraph (d) of this section. The
FHWA will not assess the progress achieved for any additional targets a
State DOT may establish under Sec. 490.105(e)(3).
(2) Significant Progress toward individual NHPP Targets. The FHWA
will determine that a State DOT has made significant progress toward
the achievement of each 2-year or 4-year NHPP target if either:
(i) The actual condition/performance level is better than the
baseline condition/performance reported in the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report; or
(ii) The actual condition/performance level is equal to or better
than the established target.
(3) Phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement
condition measures. The following requirements shall only apply to the
first performance period and the Interstate System pavement condition
targets, described in Sec. 490.105(e)(7):
(i) At the midpoint of the first performance period, FHWA will not
make a determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
2-year targets for Interstate System pavement condition measures.
(ii) The FHWA will classify the assessment of progress toward the
achievement of targets in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section as
``progress not determined'' so that they will be excluded from the
requirement under paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(4) Insufficient data and/or information. If a State DOT does not
provide sufficient data and/or information, required under paragraph
(d) of this section and Sec. 490.107, necessary for FHWA to make
significant progress determination for each NHPP target, FHWA will
determine that the State DOT has not made significant progress toward
the achievement of the applicable NHPP target(s).
(5) Extenuating circumstances. The FHWA will consider extenuating
circumstances documented by the State DOT in the assessment of progress
toward the achievement of NHPP targets in the relevant State Biennial
Performance Report, provided in Sec. 490.107.
(i) The FHWA will classify the assessment of progress toward the
achievement of an individual 2-year or 4-year target as ``progress not
determined'' if the State DOT has provided an explanation of the
extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the State DOT that
prevented it from making significant progress toward the achievement of
a 2-year or 4-year target and the State DOT has quantified the impacts
on the condition/performance that resulted from the circumstances,
which include:
(A) Natural or man-made disasters that caused delay in NHPP project
delivery, extenuating delay in data collection, and/or damage/loss of
data system;
(B) Sudden discontinuation of Federal Government furnished data due
to natural and man-made disasters or lack of funding; and/or
(C) New law and/or regulation directing State DOTs to change metric
and/or measure calculation.
(ii) If the State DOT's explanation, described in paragraph
(e)(5)(i) of this section, is accepted by FHWA, FHWA will classify the
progress towards achieving the relevant NHPP target(s) as ``progress
not determined,'' and those targets will be excluded from the
requirement in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(f) Performance achievement. If FHWA determines that a State DOT
has not made significant progress towards the achievement of NHPP
targets in two consecutive FHWA determinations, then the State DOT
shall include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description of
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve the targets related
to the measure in which significant progress was not achieved as
follows:
(1) If significant progress is not made for either target
established for the Interstate System pavement condition measures,
Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and (2), then the State DOT shall document the
actions they will take to improve Interstate Pavement conditions;
(2) If significant progress is not made for either target
established for the Non-Interstate System pavement condition measures,
Sec. 490.307(a)(3) and (4), then the State DOT shall document the
actions they will take to improve Non-Interstate Pavement conditions.
(3) If significant progress is not made for either target
established for the NHS bridge condition measures, Sec. 490.407(c)(1)
and (2), then the State DOT shall document the actions they will take
to improve NHS bridge conditions.
(4) [Reserved].
(5) [Reserved].
(6) The State DOT should, within 6 months of the significant
progress determination and in a format that can be made available to
FHWA, document the information specified in this paragraph to ensure
actions are being taken to improve progress.
(7) [Reserved].
Sec. 490.111 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, FHWA must publish a notice of change in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Highway
[[Page 386]]
Policy Information (202-366-4631) and is available from the sources
listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) The Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, www.fhwa.dot.gov.
(1) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, IBR
approved for subpart A though C.
(2) Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, Report No. FHWA-PD-96-001, December
1995 and errata, IBR approved for subpart D.
(c) The American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC
20001, (202) 624-5800, www.transportation.org.
(1) AASHTO Standard M328-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(2) AASHTO Standard R57-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling Systems, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(3) AASHTO Standard R55-10 (2013), Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surface, 2014,
34th/2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(4) AASHTO Standard PP67-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from
Collected Images Utilizing Automated Methods, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(5) AASHTO Standard PP68-14, Standard Specification for Collecting
Images of Pavement Surfaces for Distress Detection, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(6) AASHTO Standard R48-10 (2003), Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Determining Rut Depth in Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(7) AASHTO Standard PP69-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross
Slope from Collected Transverse Profiles, 2013, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(8) AASHTO Standard PP70-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Collection the Transverse Pavement Profile, 2014, 34th/
2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(9) AASHTO Standard R36-13, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
(10) AASHTO Standard R43-13, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Roughness of Pavement, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
0
4. Add subpart C to read as follows:
Subpart C--National Performance Management Measures for the Assessing
Pavement Condition
Sec.
490.301 Purpose.
490.303 Applicability.
490.305 Definitions.
490.307 National Performance Management Measures for Assessing
Pavement Condition.
490.309 Data requirements.
490.311 Calculation of Pavement Metrics.
490.313 Calculation of Performance Management Measures.
490.315 Establishment of minimum level for condition of Pavements.
490.317 Penalties for not maintaining minimum Interstate System
pavement condition.
490.319 Other requirements.
Subpart C--National Performance Management Measures for the
Assessing Pavement Condition
Sec. 490.301 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement the following statutory
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3) to:
(a) Establish measures for States and MPOs to assess the condition
of pavements on the Interstate System;
(b) Establish measures for States and MPOs to assess the condition
of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate);
(c) Establish minimum levels for pavement condition on the
Interstate System, only for purposes of carrying out 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1);
(d) Establish data elements that are necessary to collect and
maintain standardized data to carry out a performance-based approach;
and
(e) Consider regional differences in establishing the minimum
levels for pavement conditions on the Interstate System.
Sec. 490.303 Applicability.
The performance measures in this subpart are applicable to the
mainline highways on the Interstate System and on the non-Interstate
NHS.
Sec. 490.305 Definitions.
The following definitions are only applicable to this subpart,
unless otherwise provided:
Asphalt pavements means pavements where the top-most surface is
constructed with asphalt materials. These pavements are coded in the
HPMS as having any one of the following Surface Types:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Surface_type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................... Bituminous.
6............................... Asphalt-Concrete (AC) Overlay over
Existing AC Pavement.
7............................... AC Overlay over Existing Jointed
Concrete Pavement.
8............................... AC (Bituminous Overlay over Existing
CRCP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements (CRCP) means pavements
where the top-most surface is constructed of reinforced Portland cement
concrete with no joints. These pavements are coded in the HPMS as
having the following Surface Type:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Surface_type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... CRCP--Continuously Reinforced Concrete
Pavement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cracking means an unintentional break in the continuous surface of
a pavement. Cracking percent means the percentage of pavement surface
exhibiting cracking as follows:
(1) For Asphalt pavements, Cracking_Percent is the percentage of
the area of the pavement section, exhibiting visible cracking.
[[Page 387]]
(2) For Jointed Concrete Pavements, Cracking_Percent is the
percentage of concrete slabs exhibiting cracking;
(3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent is the percentage of pavement
surface with longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts, spalling or other
visible defects.
Faulting means a vertical misalignment of pavement joints in
Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.
International Roughness Index (IRI) means a statistic used to
estimate the amount of roughness in a measured longitudinal profile.
The IRI is computed from a single longitudinal profile using a quarter-
car simulation, as described in the report: ``On the Calculation of IRI
from Longitudinal Road Profile'' (Sayers, M.W., Transportation Research
Board 1501, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC 1995).
Jointed concrete pavements means pavements where the top-most
surface is constructed of Portland cement concrete with joints. It may
be constructed of either reinforced or unreinforced (plain) concrete.
It is coded in the HPMS as having any one of the following Surface
Types:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Surface_type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................... Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement.
4............................... Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement.
9............................... Unbonded Jointed Concrete Overlay on
PCC Pavement.
10.............................. Bonded PCC Overlay on PCC Pavement.
11.............................. Other (includes ``whitetopping'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pavement means any hard surfaced travel lanes of any highway.
Pavement Surface Rating (PSR) means an observation based system
formerly used to rate pavements. It is not to be used to measure or
rate NHS pavement conditions.
Punchout means a distress specific to CRCP described as the area
between two closely spaced transverse cracks and between a short
longitudinal crack and the edge of the pavement (or a longitudinal
joint) that is breaking up, spalling, or faulting.
Rutting means longitudinal surface depressions in the pavement
derived from measurements of a profile transverse to the path of travel
on a highway lane. It may have associated transverse displacement.
Sampling as applied to pavements, means measuring pavement
conditions on a short section of pavement as a statistical
representation for the entire section. Sampling is not to be used to
measure or rate non-Interstate NHS pavement conditions after January 1,
2018. Sampling is not permitted on the Interstate System.
Sec. 490.307 National performance management measures for assessing
pavement condition.
(a) To carry out the NHPP, the performance measures for States to
assess pavement condition are:
(1) Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good
condition;
(2) Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Poor
condition;
(3) Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good
condition; and
(4) Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor
condition.
(b) State DOTs will collect data using the methods described in
Sec. 490.309 and will process this data to calculate individual
pavement metrics for each section of pavement that will be reported to
FHWA as described in Sec. 490.311. State DOTs and FHWA will use the
reported pavement metrics to compute an overall performance of Good,
Fair, or Poor, for each section of pavement as described in Sec.
490.313.
Sec. 490.309 Data requirements.
(a) The performance measures identified in Sec. 490.307 are to be
computed using methods in Sec. 490.313 from the four condition metrics
and three inventory data elements contained within the HPMS that shall
be collected and reported following the HPMS Field Manual, which is
incorporated by reference into this subpart (see Sec. 490.111). The
four condition metrics include: IRI, rutting, faulting, and
Cracking_Percent. The three data elements include: Through Lanes,
Surface Type, and Structure Type.
(b) State DOTs shall collect data in accordance with the following
relevant HPMS requirements to report IRI, rutting (asphalt pavements),
faulting (jointed concrete pavements), and Cracking Percent.
(1) For the Interstate System the following shall apply for all the
pavement condition metrics:
(i) State DOTs shall collect data--
(A) From the full extent of the mainline highway;
(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one consistent lane for all
data if the rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
(C) Continuously collected in a manner that will allow for
reporting in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not
achievable; sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
(D) In both directions of travel; and
(E) On an annual frequency.
(ii) Estimating conditions from data samples of the full extent of
the mainline highway is not permitted.
(iii) Pavement condition data shall be collected separately for
each direction of the Interstate System. Averaging across directions is
not permitted.
(2) For the non-Interstate NHS the following shall apply:
(i) For the IRI metric, State DOTs shall collect and report data:
(A) From the full extent of the mainline highway;
(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one consistent lane for all
data if the rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
(C) Continuously collected in a manner that will allow for
reporting in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not
achievable; sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
(D) In one direction of travel; and
(E) On a biennial frequency.
(F) Estimating conditions from data samples of the full extent of
the mainline will not be permitted.
(ii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting and faulting metrics, data
collected prior to the data collection cycle ending December 31, 2019,
shall be collected:
(A) Using sampling methods outlined in the HPMS Field Manual
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111); and
(B) On at least a biennial frequency.
(iii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting and faulting metrics, data
collected beginning with the data collection cycle ending December 31,
2019, shall be in accordance with the following:
(A) On the full extent (no sampling) of the mainline highway;
(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one consistent lane for all
data if the rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
(C) Continuously collected in a manner that will allow for
reporting in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not
achievable; sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
(D) In one direction of travel; and
(E) On at least a biennial frequency.
(F) Estimating conditions from data samples of the full extent of
the mainline highway will not be permitted.
(3) Data collection methods for each of the condition metrics shall
conform to the following:
(i) The device to collect data needed to calculate the IRI metric
shall be in
[[Page 388]]
accordance with American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Standard M328-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 490.111).
(ii) The method to collect data needed to calculate the IRI metric
shall be in accordance with AASHTO Standard R57-14, Standard
Specification for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Standard Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling Systems
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111).
(iii) The method to collect data needed to determine the
Cracking_Percent metric for all pavement types except CRCP shall be
either:
(A) Manual, in accordance with AASHTO Standard R55-10 (2013),
Standard Specification for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for Quantifying Cracks in
Asphalt Pavement Surface (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
490.111); or
(B) Automated, in accordance with AASHTO Standards PP67-14,
Standard Specification for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for Quantifying Cracks in
Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from Collected Images Utilizing Automated
Methods (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111), and PP68-14,
Standard Specification for Collecting Images of Pavement Surfaces for
Distress Detection (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111).
(iv) For CRCP the method to collect the data needed to determine
the Cracking_Percent metric is described in the HPMS Field Manual
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111) and includes
longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts, spalling, or other visible
defects.
(v) For Asphalt Pavements, the method to collect data needed to
determine the rutting metric shall either be:
(A) A 5-Point Collection of Rutting Data method in accordance with
AASHTO Standard R48-10, Standard Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for
Determining Rut Depth in Pavements (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 490.111); or
(B) An Automated Transverse Profile Data method in accordance with
AASHTO Standards PP69-14, Standard Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for
Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross Slope from
Collected Transverse Profiles (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
490.111), and PP70-14, Standard Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for
Collection the Transverse Pavement Profile (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 490.111).
(vi) For Jointed Concrete Pavements, the method to collect data
needed to determine the faulting metric shall be in accordance with
AASHTO Standard R36-13, Standard Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for
Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 490.111).
(c) State DOTs shall collect data in accordance with the following
relevant HPMS requirements to report Through Lanes, Surface Type, and
Structure Type.
(1) State DOTs shall collect data:
(i) For the full extent of the mainline highway of the NHS;
(ii) In both directions of travel for the Interstate System and in
one direction of travel for the non-Interstate NHS; and
(iii) On at least a biennial frequency.
(2) Estimating data elements from samples of the full extent of the
mainline highway is not permitted, except as provided in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
Sec. 490.311 Calculation of pavement metrics.
(a) The condition metrics and data elements needed to calculate the
pavement performance measures shall be calculated in accordance with
the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111),
except as noted below.
(b) State DOTs shall calculate metrics in accordance with the
following relevant HPMS requirements.
(1) For all pavements, the IRI metric:
(i) Shall be computed from pavement profile data in accordance with
AASHTO Standard R43-13, Standard Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for
Quantifying Roughness of Pavement, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-
56051-606-4 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111);
(ii) Shall be reported for all pavements as the average value in
inches per mile for each section; and
(iii) Shall not be estimated from a PSR or other observation-based
method.
(2) For asphalt pavements--
(i) The Cracking Percent metric shall be computed as the percentage
of the total area containing visible cracks to the nearest whole
percent in each section; and
(ii) The rutting metric shall be computed as the average depth of
rutting, in inches to the nearest 0.05 inches, for the section.
(3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent metric shall be computed as the
percentage of the area of the section to the nearest whole percent
exhibiting longitudinal cracking, punchouts, spalling or other visible
defects. Transverse cracking shall not be considered in the
Cracking_Percent metric.
(4) For jointed concrete pavements--
(i) The Cracking Percent metric shall be computed as the percentage
of slabs to the nearest whole percent within the section that exhibit
cracking;
(ii) Partial slabs shall contribute to the section that contains
the majority of the slab length; and
(iii) The faulting metric shall be computed as the average height,
in inches to the nearest 0.05 inch, of faulting between pavement slabs
for the section.
(c) State DOTs shall report the four pavement metrics and three
inventory data elements listed in Sec. 490.309(a) as calculated
following the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in
accordance with the following relevant HPMS requirements:
(1) Metrics and inventory data elements shall be reported to the
HPMS in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not
achievable; and sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
(2) Each section shall have a single value for each of the relevant
condition metrics and a single value for each of the inventory data
elements.
(3) The time and location reference shall be reported for each
section as follows:
(i) The State Code, Route ID, Begin Point, and End Point shall be
reported as specified in the HPMS field manual (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 490.111) for each of the four condition metrics
and three inventory data elements;
(ii) The Year Record shall be reported as the four digit year for
which the data represents for each of the four condition metrics and
three inventory data elements; and
[[Page 389]]
(iii) The Value Date shall be reported as the month and year of
data collection for each of the four condition metrics.
(4) Sections for the four condition metrics and three inventory
data elements shall be reported to the HPMS for the Interstate System
by April 15 of each year for the data collected during the previous
calendar year.
(5) Sections for the four condition metrics and three inventory
data elements shall be reported to the HPMS for the non-Interstate NHS
by June 15 of each year for the data collected during the previous
calendar year.
Sec. 490.313 Calculation of performance management measures.
(a) The pavement measures in Sec. 490.307 shall be calculated in
accordance with this section and used by State DOTs and MPOs to carry
out the pavement condition related requirements of this part, and by
FHWA to make the significant progress and minimum condition
determinations specified in Sec. Sec. 490.109 and 490.317,
respectively.
(b) The performance measure for pavements shall be calculated based
on the data collected in Sec. 490.309 and pavement condition metrics
computed in Sec. 490.311. The performance measure for pavements shall
be based on three condition ratings of Good, Fair, and Poor calculated
for each pavement section. The ratings are determined as follows.
(1) IRI rating shall be determined for all pavement types using the
following criteria:
(i) If an IRI value of a pavement section in a non-urbanized area
or urbanized area with a population less than 1 million is--
(A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the pavement section is Good;
(B) Between 95 and 170, the IRI rating for the pavement section is
Fair; and
(C) Greater than 170, the IRI rating for the pavement section is
Poor.
(ii) If an IRI value of a pavement section in an urbanized area
with a population of at least 1 million is--
(A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the pavement section is Good;
(B) Between 95 and 220, the IRI rating for the pavement section is
Fair; and
(C) Greater than 220, the IRI rating for the pavement section is
Poor.
(2) Cracking condition shall be determined using the following
criteria:
(i) For asphalt and jointed concrete pavement sections--
(A) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is less than 5
percent, the cracking rating for the pavement section is Good;
(B) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is equal to or
greater than 5 percent and less than or equal to 10 percent the
cracking rating for the pavement section is Fair; and
(C) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is greater than 10
percent the cracking rating for the pavement section is Poor.
(ii) For CRCP sections:
(A) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is less than 5
percent, the cracking rating for the pavement section is Good;
(B) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is equal to or
greater than 5 percent and less than or equal to 10 percent, the
cracking rating for the pavement section is Fair; and
(C) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is greater than 10
percent, the cracking rating for the pavement section is Poor.
(3) Rutting or faulting rating shall be determined using the
following criteria.
(i) For asphalt pavement:
(A) If the rutting value of a section is less than 0.20 inches, the
rutting rating for the pavement section is Good;
(B) If the rutting value of a section is equal to or greater than
0.20 inches and less than or equal to 0.40 inches, the rutting rating
for the pavement section is Fair; and
(C) If the rutting value of a section in is greater than 0.40
inches, the rutting rating for the pavement section is Poor.
(ii) For jointed concrete pavement:
(A) If the faulting value of a section is less than 0.05 inches,
the faulting rating for the pavement section is Good;
(B) If the faulting value of a section is equal to or greater than
0.05 inches and less than or equal to 0.15 inches, the faulting rating
for the pavement section is Fair; and
(C) If the faulting value of a section is greater than 0.15 inches,
the faulting rating for the pavement section is Poor.
(4) Missing sections or sections reported to the HPMS with
unresolved, missing, or invalid data as determined on the dates
specified in Sec. 490.109(d)(1) and (2), shall be addressed as
follows:
(i) Mainline lane-miles that are missing sections or represented
with sections that are missing data or contain invalid data as
specified in Sec. 490.311(c) for any of the four condition metrics
will be rated as Poor for each respective condition metric; and
(ii) Mainline lane-miles that are missing sections or represented
with sections that are missing data or contain invalid data as
specified in Sec. 490.311(c) for any of the three inventory data
elements will be rated in overall Poor condition.
(c) The overall condition for asphalt and jointed concrete pavement
sections shall be determined based on the ratings for IRI, Cracking
Percent, rutting and faulting, as described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section, respectively, for each section as follows:
(1) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Good
only if the section is exhibiting Good ratings for all three conditions
(IRI, Cracking_Percent, and rutting or faulting);
(2) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Poor
if two or more of the three conditions are exhibiting Poor ratings (at
least two ratings of Poor for IRI, Cracking Percent, and rutting or
faulting).
(3) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Fair
if it does not meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(d) The Overall Condition for CRCP sections shall be determined
based on two ratings of IRI and Cracking_Percent, as described in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, respectively, for each
section as follows:
(1) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Good
only if the section is exhibiting Good ratings for both conditions (IRI
and Cracking Percent);
(2) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Poor
if it exhibits Poor ratings for both conditions (IRI and Cracking
Percent);
(3) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Fair
if it does not meet the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this
section.
(e) State DOTs shall not be subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section for Pavements on the non-Interstate NHS until after the
data collection cycle ending December 31, 2019. During this transition
period, the Overall condition for all pavement types on the non-
Interstate NHS will be based on IRI rating, as described in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, until the Cracking Percent, rutting, and
faulting data collection requirements are in effect, as described in
Sec. 490.309(b)(2)(iii).
(f) The pavement condition measures in Sec. 490.307 shall be
computed as described below. The measures shall be used for
establishing targets in accordance with Sec. 490.105 and reporting the
conditions of the pavements in the biennial performance reporting
required in Sec. 490.107 as follows:
(1) Bridges shall be excluded prior to computing all pavement
condition measures by removing the sections where the Structure Type is
coded as 1.
(2) For Sec. 490.307(a)(1) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the Interstate System in Good condition shall be computed to
the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[[Page 390]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.020
where:
Good = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections
where the overall condition is Good;
g = a section's overall condition is determined Good per paragraphs
(b) or (c) of this section;
t = an Interstate System section;
Total = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section g or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section g or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic
represented by a section g or t.
(3) For Sec. 490.307(a)(2) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the Interstate System in Poor condition shall be computed to
the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.021
where:
Poor = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections
where the overall condition is Poor;
p = a section's overall condition is determined Poor per paragraphs
(b) or (c) of this section;
t = an Interstate System section;
Total = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section p or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section p or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic
represented by a section p or t.
(4) For Sec. 490.307(a)(3) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition shall be computed to
the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.022
where:
Good = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS sections
where the overall condition is Good;
g = a section's overall condition is determined Good per paragraphs
(b), (c), or (d) of this section;
t = a non-Interstate NHS section;
Total = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS
sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section g or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section g or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic
represented by a section g or t.
(5) For Sec. 490.307(a)(4) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition shall be computed to
the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.023
where:
Poor = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS sections
where the overall condition is Poor;
p = a section's overall condition is determined Poor per paragraphs
(b), (c), or (d) of this section;
t = a non-Interstate NHS section;
Total = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS
sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section p or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section p or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic
represented by a section p or t.
Sec. 490.315 Establishment of minimum level for condition of
pavements.
For the purposes of carrying out the requirements of 23 U.S.C.
119(f)(1), the Percentage of lane-miles of Interstate System in Poor
condition, as computed per Sec. 490.313(f)(3), shall not exceed 5.0
percent.
Sec. 490.317 Penalties for not maintaining minimum Interstate System
pavement condition.
(a) The FHWA shall compute the percentage of lane-miles of the
Interstate System, excluding sections on bridges, in Poor Condition, in
accordance with Sec. 490.313(f)(3), for each State annually.
(b) The FHWA shall extract data contained within the HPMS on June
15 that represents conditions from the prior calendar year for
Interstate System pavement conditions to carry out paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) The FHWA shall determine State DOT compliance with Sec.
490.315(a) after the first full year of data collection for the
Interstate System following the effective date of this rule and each
year thereafter.
(d) The FHWA shall determine if a State DOT is in compliance with
23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) after the second full year of data collection for
the Interstate
[[Page 391]]
System following the effective date of this rule and each year
thereafter based on the determination made in paragraph (c) of this
section for the most recent 2 years. The FHWA will determine a State
DOT to be in compliance with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) if the State DOT is
determined to be in compliance with Sec. 490.315(a) in either of the
most recent 2 years.
(e) The FHWA will notify State DOTs of their compliance with 23
U.S.C. 119(f)(1) prior to October 1 of the year in which the
determination was made.
(f) If FHWA determines through conduct of paragraph (d) of this
section a State DOT to be out of compliance with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)
then the State DOT shall, during the following fiscal year:
(1) Obligate, from the amounts apportioned to the State DOT under
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) (for the NHPP), an amount that is not less than the
amount of funds apportioned to the State for Federal fiscal year 2009
under the Interstate Maintenance program for the purposes described in
23 U.S.C. 119 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of
the MAP-21), except that for each year after Federal fiscal year 2013,
the amount required to be obligated under this clause shall be
increased by 2 percent over the amount required to be obligated in the
previous fiscal year; and
(2) Transfer, from the amounts apportioned to the State DOT under
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) (for the Surface Transportation Program) (other
than amounts sub-allocated to metropolitan areas and other areas of the
State under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)) to the apportionment of the State under
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of
funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2009 under the
Interstate Maintenance program for the purposes described in 23 U.S.C.
119 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the MAP-
21).
Sec. 490.319 Other requirements.
(a) In accordance with the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 490.111), each State DOT shall report the
following to the HPMS no later than April 15 each year:
(1) The pavement condition metrics specified in Sec. 490.311 that
are necessary to calculate the Interstate System condition measures
identified in Sec. Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and (2) and;
(2) the data elements specified in Sec. 490.309(b)(4) for the
Interstate System
(b) In accordance with the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 490.111), each State DOT shall report to the HPMS
no later than June 15 each year the pavement condition metrics
specified in Sec. 490.311 that are necessary to calculate the non-
Interstate NHS condition measures in Sec. Sec. 490.307(a)(3) and (4).
(c) Each State DOT shall develop and utilize a Data Quality
Management Program, approved by FHWA that addresses the quality of all
data collected, regardless of the method of acquisition, to report the
pavement condition metrics, discussed in Sec. 490.311, and data
elements discussed in Sec. 490.309(b)(4).
(1) In a Data Quality Management Programs, State DOTs shall
include, at a minimum, methods and processes for:
(i) Data collection equipment calibration and certification;
(ii) Certification process for persons performing manual data
collection;
(iii) Data quality control measures to be conducted before data
collection begins and periodically during the data collection program;
(iv) Data sampling, review and checking processes; and
(v) Error resolution procedures and data acceptance criteria.
(2) Not later than 1 year after the effective date of this
regulation, State DOTs shall submit their Data Quality Management
Program to FHWA for approval. Once FHWA approves a State DOT's Data
Quality Management Program, the State DOT shall use that Program to
collect and report data required by Sec. Sec. 490.309 to 490.311.
State DOTs also shall submit any proposed significant change to the
Data Quality Management Program to FHWA for approval prior to
implementing the change.
0
5. Add subpart D to read as follows:
Subpart D--National Performance Management Measures for Assessing
Bridge Condition
Sec.
490.401 Purpose.
490.403 Applicability.
490.405 Definitions.
490.407 National performance management measures for assessing
bridge condition.
490.409 Calculation of National performance management measures for
assessing bridge condition.
490.411 Establishment of minimum level for condition for bridges.
490.413 Penalties for not maintaining bridge condition.
Subpart D--National Performance Management Measures for Assessing
Bridge Condition
Sec. 490.401 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(III), which requires the Secretary of
Transportation to establish performance measures for the purpose of
carrying out the NHPP and for State DOTs and MPOs to use in assessing
the condition of bridges on the NHS.
Sec. 490.403 Applicability.
The section is only applicable to NHS bridges including bridges on
ramps connecting to the NHS as defined by 23 U.S.C. 103.
Sec. 490.405 Definitions.
The following definitions are only applicable to this subpart,
unless otherwise provided:
Bridge as used in this section, is defined in 23 CFR 650.305, the
National Bridge Inspection Standards.
Structurally deficient as used in Sec. Sec. 490.411 and 490.413 is
a classification given to a bridge which has significant load carrying
elements in poor or worse condition or the adequacy of the waterway
opening provided by the bridge is determined to be insufficient to the
point of causing overtopping with intolerable traffic interruptions.
Sec. 490.407 National performance management measures for assessing
bridge condition.
(a) There are three classifications for the purpose of assessing
bridge condition. They are:
(1) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition;
(2) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Fair condition; and
(3) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition.
(b) [Reserved].
(c) To carry out the NHPP, two of the three classifications are
performance measures for State DOTs to use to assess bridge condition
on the NHS. They are:
(1) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition; and
(2) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition.
(d) Determination of Good and Poor conditions are described in
Sec. 490.409.
Sec. 490.409 Calculation of national performance management measures
for assessing bridge condition.
(a) The bridge measures in Sec. 490.407 shall be calculated in
accordance with this section and used by State DOTs and MPOs to carry
out the bridge condition related requirements of this part and by FHWA
to make the significant progress determination specified in Sec.
490.109.
(b) The condition of bridges on the NHS, including bridges on ramps
connecting to the NHS, shall be classified as Good, Fair, or Poor
following the criteria specified in this paragraph. The assignment of a
classification of Good, Fair, or Poor
[[Page 392]]
shall be based on the bridge's condition ratings for NBI Items 58--
Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, and 62--Culverts. For the
purposes of national performance measures under the NHPP, the method of
assessment to determine the classification of a bridge will be the
minimum of condition rating method, i.e., the condition ratings for
lowest rating of a bridge's 3 NBI Items, 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure,
and 60--Substructure, and will determine the classification of a
bridge. For culverts, the rating of its NBI Item, 62--Culverts, will
determine its classification. The NHS bridges will be classified as
Good, Fair, or Poor based on the following criteria:
(1) Good: When the lowest rating of any of the 3 NBI items for a
bridge (Items 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure) is 7, 8
or 9, the bridge will be classified as Good. When the rating of NBI
item for a culvert (Item 62--Culverts) is 7, 8, or 9, the culvert will
be classified as Good.
(2) Fair: When the lowest rating of any of the 3 NBI items for a
bridge is 5 or 6, the bridge will be classified as Fair. When the
rating of NBI item for a culvert is 5 or 6, the culvert will be
classified as Fair.
(3) Poor: When the lowest rating of any of the 3 NBI items for a
bridge is 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, the bridge will be classified as Poor. When
the rating of NBI item for a culvert is 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, the culvert
will be classified as Poor.
(c) The bridge measures specified in Sec. 490.407(c) shall be
calculated for the applicable bridges per paragraph (a) of this section
that pertain to each target established by the State DOT or MPO in
Sec. 490.105(e) and (f), respectively, as follows:
(1) For Sec. 490.407(c)(1), the measure for the Percentage of
bridges classified as in Good condition shall be computed and reported
to the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.024
Where:
GOOD = total number of the applicable bridges, where their condition
is Good per paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
g = a bridge determined to be in Good condition per paragraph (b)(1)
of this section;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 49--Structure Length for
every applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 52--Deck Width or value of
Item 32 Approach Roadway Width for culverts where the roadway is on
a fill [i.e., traffic does not directly run on the top slab (or
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the headwalls do not affect the
flow of traffic for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of this section; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable bridges specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For Sec. 490.407(c)(2), the measure for the Percentage of
bridges classified as in Poor condition shall be computed and reported
to the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.025
Where:
POOR = total number of the applicable bridges, where their condition
is Poor per paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
p = a bridge determined to be in Poor condition per paragraph (b)(3)
of this section;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 49--Structure Length for
every applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 52--Deck Width or value of
Item 32 Approach Roadway Width for culverts where the roadway is on
a fill [i.e., traffic does not directly run on the top slab (or
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the headwalls do not affect the
flow of traffic for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of this section; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable bridges specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) The measures identified in Sec. 490.407(c) shall be used to
establish targets in accordance with Sec. 490.105 and report targets
and conditions described in Sec. 490.107.
(e) The NBI Items included in this section are found in the
Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of
the Nation's Bridges, which is incorporated by reference (see Sec.
490.111).
Sec. 490.411 Establishment of minimum level for condition for
bridges.
(a) State DOTs will maintain bridges so that the percentage of the
deck area of bridges classified as Structurally Deficient does not
exceed 10.0 percent. This minimum condition level is applicable to
bridges on the NHS and bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS within a
State and bridges on the NHS that cross a State border.
(b) For the purposes of carrying out this section and Sec.
490.413, a bridge will be classified as Structurally Deficient when one
of its NBI Items, 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, or
62--Culverts, is 4 or less, or when one of its NBI Items, 67--
Structural Evaluation or 71--Waterway Adequacy, is 2 or less.
(c) For all NHS bridges including ramps connecting to the NHS and
NHS bridges that cross a State border, FHWA shall calculate a ratio of
the total deck area of all bridges classified as Structurally Deficient
to the total deck area of all applicable bridges for each State. The
percentage of deck area of bridges classified as Structurally Deficient
shall be computed by FHWA to the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.026
[[Page 393]]
Where:
Structurally Deficient = total number of the applicable bridges,
where their classification is Structurally Deficient per this
section and Sec. 490.413;
SD = a bridge classified as Structurally Deficient per this section
and Sec. 490.413;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 49--Structure Length for
every applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 52--Deck Width or value of
Item 32 Approach Roadway Width for culverts where the roadway is on
a fill [i.e., traffic does not directly run on the top slab (or
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the headwalls do not affect the
flow of traffic for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per this section and Sec. 490.413; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable bridges specified in this
section and Sec. 490.413.
(d) The FHWA will annually determine the percentage of the deck
area of NHS bridges classified as Structurally Deficient for each State
DOT and identify State DOTs that do not meet the minimum level of
condition for NHS bridges based on data cleared in the NBI as of June
15 of each year. The FHWA will notify State DOTs of their compliance
with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) prior to October 1 of the year in which the
determination was made.
(e) For the purposes of carrying out this section, State DOTs will
annually submit their most current NBI data on highway bridges to FHWA
no later than March 15 of each year.
(f) The NBI Items included in this section are found in the
Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of
the Nation's Bridges, which is incorporated by reference (see Sec.
490.111).
Sec. 490.413 Penalties for not maintaining bridge condition.
(a) If FHWA determines for the 3-year period preceding the date of
the determination, that more than 10.0 percent of the total deck area
of bridges in the State on the NHS is located on bridges that have been
classified as Structurally Deficient, the following requirements will
apply.
(1) During the fiscal year following the determination, the State
DOT shall obligate and set aside in an amount equal to 50 percent of
funds apportioned to such State for fiscal year 2009 to carry out 23
U.S.C. 144 (as in effect the day before enactment of MAP-21) from
amounts apportioned to a State for a fiscal year under 23 U.S.C.
104(b)(1) only for eligible projects on bridges on the NHS.
(2) The set-aside and obligation requirement for bridges on the NHS
in a State in this paragraph (a) for a fiscal year shall remain in
effect for each subsequent fiscal year until such time as less than 10
percent of the total deck area of bridges in the State on the NHS is
located on bridges that have been classified as Structurally Deficient
as determined by FHWA.
(b) The FHWA will make the first determination by October 1, 2016,
and each fiscal year thereafter.
[FR Doc. 2014-30085 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
