National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 23805-23913 [2016-08014]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 78
April 22, 2016
Part II
Department of Transportation
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 490
National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of
the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System,
and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program; Proposed
Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23806
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 490
[Docket No. FHWA–2013–0054]
RIN 2125–AF54
National Performance Management
Measures; Assessing Performance of
the National Highway System, Freight
Movement on the Interstate System,
and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This NPRM is the third in a
series of three related NPRMs that
together establishes a set of performance
measures for State departments of
transportation (State DOT) and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPO) to use as required by Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP–21). The measures proposed
in this third NPRM would be used by
State DOTs and MPOs to assess the
performance of the Interstate and nonInterstate National Highway System
(NHS) for the purpose of carrying out
the National Highway Performance
Program (NHPP); to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System; and
to assess traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions for the purpose
of carrying out the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program. This
third performance measure NPRM also
includes a discussion that summarizes
all three of the national performance
management measures proposed rules
and the comprehensive regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) to include all
three NPRMs.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 20, 2016. Late
comments will be considered to the
extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
FHWA–2013–0020 by any one of the
following methods:
Fax: 1–202–493–2251;
Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590;
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2125–AF54). In accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better
inform its rulemaking process. The DOT
posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the
commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information: Francine Shaw
Whitson, Office of Infrastructure, (202)
366–8028; for legal information: Anne
Christenson, Office of Chief Counsel,
(202) 366–0740, Federal Highway
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
FHWA has published two additional
NPRMs to establish the remaining
measures required under 23 U.S.C.
150(c). The first performance measure
NPRM proposed establishment of
measures to carry out the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and
to assess serious injuries and fatalities,
both in number and expressed as a rate,
on all public roads. On March 15, 2016,
FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol.
81 No. 50) covering the safety-related
elements of the Federal-aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking. The
second performance measure NPRM
proposed establishment of performance
measures to assess pavement and bridge
conditions on the Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of
carrying out the NHPP. This NPRM, the
third performance measure NPRM,
focuses on measures for the
performance of the NHS, freight
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
movement on the Interstate System, and
the CMAQ Program.
This last NPRM includes a discussion
that summarizes all three of the
rulemakings, both finished and
underway, that will establish the
measures required under 23 U.S.C.
150(c).
Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the
Regulatory Action in Question
C. Incorporating the FAST Act
D. Costs and Benefits
II. 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
1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for
Subparts E and G: Performance
Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway
System and to Assess the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program—Traffic Congestion
2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for
Subpart F: National Performance
Management Measures to Assess Freight
Movement on the Interstate System
3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for
Subpart H: National Performance
Management Measures for the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—On-Road Mobile
Source Emissions
IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background
A. Summary of Related Rulemakings
B. Organization of MAP–21 PerformanceRelated Provisions
C. Implementation of MAP–21
Performance Requirements
V. Performance Management Measure
Analysis
A. Selection of Proposed Measures for
Subparts E and G—System Performance
and Traffic Congestion
B. Selection of Proposed Measures for
Subpart F—Freight Movement on the
Interstate System
C. Selection of Proposed Measures for
Subpart H—On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
D. Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Emissions Measure
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion
A. Subpart A: General Information, Target
Establishment, Reporting, and NHPP and
NHFP Significant Progress
Determination
B. Subpart E: National Performance
Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway
System
C. Subpart F: National Performance
Management Measures to Assess Freight
Movement on the Interstate System
D. Subpart G: National Performance
Management Measures to Assess the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—Traffic
Congestion
E. Subpart H: National Performance
Management Measures to Assess the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—On-Road Mobile
Source Emissions
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The MAP–21 (Pub. L. 112–141)
transforms the Federal-aid highway
program by establishing new
requirements for performance
management to ensure the most efficient
investment of Federal transportation
funds. Performance management
increases the accountability and
transparency of the Federal-aid highway
program and provides for a framework
to support improved investment
decisionmaking 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
toward the following national goals: 1
• 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.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
implement MAP–21 performance
management requirements. Prior to
MAP–21, there were no explicit
requirements for State DOTs to
demonstrate how their transportation
program supported national
performance outcomes. State DOTs were
not required to measure condition/
performance, to establish targets, to
assess progress toward targets, or to
report condition/performance in a
nationally consistent manner that
FHWA could use to assess the
condition/performance of the entire
system. Without States reporting on the
above mentioned factors, it is 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
will 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 condition/performance;
• Require the establishment of targets
that can be aggregated at the national
level;
• Require reporting in a consistent
manner on progress achievement; and
• Require State DOTs to make
significant progress.
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
ability to better communicate a national
performance story and to more reliably
assess the impacts of Federal funding
investments. The FHWA is in the
process of creating a new public Web
site to help communicate the national
performance story. The Web site will
likely include infographics, tables,
charts, and descriptions of the
performance data that the State DOTs
would be reporting to FHWA.
The FHWA is required to establish
performance measures through a
rulemaking to assess performance in 12
areas 2 generalized as follows: (1)
Serious injuries per vehicle miles
traveled (VMT); (2) fatalities per VMT;
(3) number of serious injuries; (4)
number of fatalities; (5) pavement
condition on the Interstate System; (6)
pavement condition on the nonInterstate NHS; (7) bridge condition on
the NHS; (8) traffic congestion; (9) onroad mobile source emissions; (10)
freight movement on the Interstate
System; (11) performance of the
Interstate System; and (12) performance
of the non-Interstate NHS. This
rulemaking is the third of three
rulemakings that together, will establish
the performance measures for State
DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out
Federal-aid highway programs and to
1 These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c),
which requires the Secretary to establish measures
to assess performance, condition, or emissions.
2 These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c),
which requires the Secretary to establish measures
to assess performance or condition.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
I. Executive Summary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23807
assess performance in each of these 12
areas.
This rulemaking seeks to establish
national measures for areas 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12, in the above list. This NPRM
proposes to establish performance
measures to assess the performance of
the Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS for the purpose of carrying out the
NHPP; to assess freight movement on
the Interstate System; and to assess
traffic congestion and on-road mobile
source emissions for the purpose of
carrying out the CMAQ program areas.
The two proposed measures to assess
performance of the Interstate are (1)
Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel, and (2)
Percent of the Interstate System where
peak hour travel times meet
expectations. The two proposed
measures to assess performance of the
non-Interstate NHS are (1) Percent of the
non-Interstate NHS providing for
Reliable Travel and (2) Percent of the
non-Interstate NHS where peak hour
travel times meet expectations. The two
proposed measures to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System are
(1) Percent of the Interstate System
Mileage providing for Reliable Truck
Travel Time, and (2) Percent of the
Interstate System Mileage Uncongested.
The proposed measure to assess traffic
congestion is Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay per Capita. Lastly, the proposed
measure to assess on-road mobile source
emissions is Total Tons of Emissions
Reduced from CMAQ Projects for
Applicable Criteria Pollutants and
Precursors.
In addition, this NPRM builds on the
framework of the previous performance
rulemakings and the process proposed
for State DOTs and MPOs to establish
targets for each of the measures; the
methodology to determine whether
State DOTs have achieved or made
significant progress toward their NHPP
or National Highway Freight Program
(NHFP) targets (targets for national
measures areas 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12,
in the above list); and the process for
State DOTs to use to report on progress
toward achieving their targets.
b. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Regulatory Action in Question
The first performance rule established
measures to be used by State DOTs to
assess performance and to carry out the
HSIP; the process for State DOTs and
MPOs to use to establish safety targets;
the methodology to determine whether
State DOTs have achieved their safety
targets; and the process for State DOTs
to report on progress toward achieving
their safety targets. The second
performance rule proposed the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23808
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
establishment of performance measures
to be use by State DOTs to assess the
condition of pavements and bridges and
to carry out the NHPP.
With this third rule, FHWA proposes
the establishment of: Performance
measures to be used by State DOTs and
MPOs to assess performance of the
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS, traffic congestion, on-road mobile
source emissions, and freight movement
on the Interstate System; the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to use to
establish targets; the methodology to
determine whether State DOTs have
achieved or made significant progress
toward their NHPP and NHFP
performance targets; and the process for
State DOTs to report on progress toward
achieving their targets. This NPRM
includes one general information area
(Subpart A) that covers definitions,
target establishment, reporting on
progress, and how determinations
would be made on whether State DOTs
have achieved or made significant
progress toward NHPP and NHFP
targets. Subparts E through H propose
performance measures in four areas: (1)
National Highway Performance
Program—Performance of the NHS
covered in Subpart E; (2) Freight
Movement on the Interstate System,
covered in Subpart F; and two measures
relating to the CMAQ Program: (3)
Traffic Congestion covered in Subpart
G, and (4) On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions, covered in Subpart H.
The FHWA had proposed in the prior
performance management NPRMs to
establish one common effective date for
its three performance measure final
rules. While FHWA recognizes that one
common effective date could be easier
for State DOTs and MPOs to implement,
the process to develop and implement
all of the Federal-aid highway
performance measures required in
MAP–21 has been lengthy. It is taking
more than 3 years since the enactment
of MAP–21 to issue all three
performance measure NPRMs (the first
performance management NPRM was
published on March 11, 2014; the
second NPRM was published on January
5, 2015). Rather than waiting for all
three rules to be final before
implementing the MAP–21 performance
measure requirements, FHWA has
decided to phase in the effective dates
for the three final rules for these
performance measures so that each of
the three performance measures rules
will have individual effective dates.
This allows FHWA and State DOTs to
begin implementing some of the
performance requirements much sooner
than waiting for the rulemaking process
to be complete for all the rules. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
FHWA believes that individual
implementation dates will also help
State DOTs transition to performance
based planning.
On March 15, 2016, FHWA published
a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50) covering
the safety-related elements of the
Federal-aid Highway Performance
Measures Rulemaking. With the
staggered effective dates, this Rule will
be implemented in its entirety before
the other two rules are finalized.
Based on the timing of each
individual rulemaking, FHWA would
provide additional guidance to
stakeholders on how to best integrate
the new requirements into their existing
processes. Under this approach, FHWA
expects that even though the
implementation for each rule would
occur after each final rule is published,
implementation for the second and the
third performance measure final rules
would ultimately be aligned through a
common performance period. In the
second performance management
measure NPRM, FHWA proposed that
the first 4-year performance period
would start on January 1, 2016.
However, FHWA proposes in this
NPRM that the first performance period
would begin on January 1, 2018. This
would align the performance periods
and reporting requirements for the
proposed measures in the second and
third performance management measure
NPRMs. The FHWA has placed on the
docket a timeline that illustrates how
this transition could be implemented.3
However, FHWA seeks comment from
the public on what an appropriate
effective date(s) could be.
Contents of 23 CFR Part 490
This NPRM proposes to add to
Subpart A general information
applicable to all of 23 CFR part 490.
This section includes requirements for
data, target establishment, reporting on
progress, and how to determine whether
State DOTs have made significant
progress toward achieving targets (for
applicable measures). Subpart A also
includes definitions and clarifies
terminology associated with target
establishment, reporting, and making
significant progress for the performance
measures specific to this NPRM.
Subparts B, C and D were previously
published in separate rulemaking
documents.
Subpart B covered the proposed
measures for the HSIP (RIN 2125–
AF49); Subpart C proposed measures to
assess pavement conditions on the NHS
and the non-Interstate NHS (RIN 2125–
3 FHWA Sample MAP21 Rule Making
Implementation and Reporting Dates.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
AF53); and Subpart D proposed
measures to assess bridge conditions on
the NHS (RIN 2125–AF53).
Subpart E proposes a travel time
reliability measure and a peak hour
travel time measure to assess the
performance of the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS. Subpart F
establishes a travel time reliability
measure and a congestion measure to
assess freight movement on the
Interstate System. Subpart G proposes
an excessive delay measure to assess
traffic congestion to carry out the CMAQ
program. Subpart H proposes measures
that will be used to assess the reduction
of the criteria pollutants and applicable
precursors to carry out the CMAQ
program.
Summary of 23 CFR Part 490, Subpart
A
In section 490.101, FHWA proposes to
add definitions for ‘‘attainment area,’’
‘‘criteria pollutant,’’ ‘‘Highway
Performance Monitoring Systems
(HPMS),’’ ‘‘freight bottleneck,’’ ‘‘full
extent,’’ ‘‘mainline highways,’’
‘‘maintenance area,’’ ‘‘measure,’’
‘‘metric,’’ ‘‘Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO),’’ ‘‘National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),’’ ‘‘National Performance
Management Research Data Set
(NPMRDS),’’ ‘‘nonattainment area,’’
‘‘non-urbanized area,’’ ‘‘reporting
segment,’’ ‘‘target,’’ ‘‘Transportation
Management Area (TMA),’’ ‘‘Travel
Time Data Set,’’ ‘‘Travel Time
Reliability,’’ and ‘‘Travel Time
Segment,’’ which would be applicable
to all subparts within Part 490.
In section 490.103, FHWA proposes
data requirements that apply to more
than one subpart in Part 490. Additional
proposed data requirements unique to
each subpart are included and discussed
in each respective subpart. This section
proposes the source of urbanized area
boundaries as the most recent U.S.
Decennial Census unless FHWA
approves adjustments to the urbanized
area. These boundaries are to be
reported to HPMS. The boundaries in
place at the time of the Baseline
Performance Report are to apply to an
entire performance period. Boundaries
for the nonattainment and maintenance
areas are proposed to be as designated
and reported by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for any of the
criteria pollutants applicable under the
CMAQ program. The FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs and MPOs
use the NPMRDS to calculate the travel
time and speed related metrics (a metric
means a quantifiable indicator of
performance or condition that is used to
develop the measures defined in this
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
rule), unless more detailed and accurate
travel time data exists locally and is
approved by FHWA for use.
The NPMRDS is a dataset based on
actual, observed data collected from
probes, such as cell phones, navigation
units, and other devices, in vehicles that
travel along the NHS roadways. The
dataset includes travel time information
collected from probes that is available at
5 minute intervals for all segments of
the Interstate and NHS where probes
were present. The advent of readily
available vehicle-based probe travel
time data in recent years has led to a
transformation in information available
to the traveler and the ability for State
DOTs and MPOs to develop
performance measures based on this
data. Because travel time data on the
entire NHS is available from actual
measurements tied to a date, time, and
location on specific roadway segments,
measuring the performance of the
system, freight movement, and
monitoring traffic congestion can be
much more accurate, widespread, and
detailed. The availability of this data
also provides the potential to undertake
before and after evaluations of
transportation projects and strategies.
These data requirements are detailed in
proposed section 490.103.
The FHWA is proposing State DOTs
and MPOs coordinate to develop
reporting segments that would be used
as the basis for calculating and reporting
metrics to FHWA for the measures
proposed in Subparts E, F, and G to
assess the performance of the NHS,
freight movement on the Interstate
System, and traffic congestion. It is
proposed that these reporting segments
must be submitted to FHWA no later
than the November 1 before the
beginning of each performance period,
and the same segments be used for
Subparts E, F, and G for the entire
performance period.
In section 490.105, FHWA proposes
the minimum requirements that would
be followed by State DOTs and MPOs to
establish targets for all measures
identified in section 490.105(c), which
includes proposed measures both in this
performance management NPRM and
the second 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 to provide for
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.
In section 490.107, FHWA proposes
the minimum requirements that would
be followed by State DOTs and MPOs in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
the reporting targets for all proposed
measures identified in both this
performance management NPRM and
the second performance management
NPRM.
Section 490.109 proposes the method
FHWA would use to determine if State
DOTs have achieved or made significant
progress toward their NHPP and NHFP
targets. Significant progress would be
determined by comparing the
established target with the measured
condition/performance associated with
that target. If applicable, State DOTs
would have the opportunity to discuss
why targets were not achieved or
significant progress was not made. For
the NHPP and NHFP measures, if
FHWA determines that a State DOT fails
to make significant progress over each of
the biennial performance reporting
periods, then the State DOT is required
to document in their next biennial
performance report, though encouraged
to document sooner, the actions they
will undertake to achieve their targets.
Summary of Proposed Measures for This
NPRM (Subparts E—H)
The NPRM gives details on specific
measures, which are proposed to be
added to four new Subparts of Part 490
that include:
Subpart E proposes two types of
measures that reflect the Travel Time
Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Times
experienced by all traffic;
Subpart F proposes two measures
that reflect the Travel Time Reliability
and Congestion experienced by freight
vehicles;
Subpart G proposes a measure that
reflects the amount of Excessive Delay
experienced by all traffic; and
Subpart H proposes a measure that
reflects the Emission Reduction
resulting through the delivery of
projects.
Travel Time Reliability is being
proposed to reflect the consistency in
expected travel times when using the
highway system by comparing the
longer trips experienced by users to the
amount of time they would normally
expect the trip to take. In Subpart E, the
NPRM proposes a reliability measure
that compares the longer trip travel
times to the time normally expected by
the typical user of the roadway. The
proposal assumes the system to be
‘‘reliable’’ when the longer travel times
are no more than 50 percent higher than
what would be normally expected by
users. For example, the system would be
perceived as unreliable when a 40
minute expected trip would take 60 or
more minutes. This proposed measure
of reliability only reflects the travel
times experienced during the times
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23809
when the system is used the most,
which is proposed to be between the
hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This
reliability approach is proposed to
establish a measure specific to the
Interstate System and the non-Interstate
NHS.
Subpart F proposes a reliability
measure to reflect the consistency of
travel times on the system as
experienced by shippers and suppliers.
In this case the measure is a comparison
of the longest travel times as compared
to the time normally expected for the
trip to take. The measure considers
travel occurring at all hours of the day
since this measure is designed to
represent the perception of shippers and
suppliers. In addition, this proposed
freight movement measure is limited to
the reliability of the Interstate System.
As with all vehicles, the system is
considered to be unreliable when the
longest trip takes 50 percent more time
than what would be normally expected.
‘‘Longer’’ and ‘‘Longest’’ trip travel
times are described in more detail in the
discussions of Section 490.505 and
490.607.
Also in Subpart E, as a complement
to the reliability measure, the NPRM
proposes a measure that evaluates the
travel times experienced by all traffic
during peak hours of the day. In contrast
to the reliability measure which focuses
on travel time variability, the peak hour
measure is designed to measure the
travel time during certain peak hours
during the day, and how that compares
to the desired travel time for that
roadway at that time of day. The desired
travel time is defined by the State DOT
and MPO. It is expected that the desired
time would be based on an analysis of
how the roadway operates, its design
features, any policy considerations, and
how it functions within the larger
system. As discussed previously,
reliability reflects the consistency of trip
time durations (e.g., A user makes a trip
every morning that consistently takes 30
minutes). The peak hour travel time
measure reflects the actual length of the
trip compared to the desired travel time
for that trip (e.g., Is the 30 minute trip
duration too long for the time of day and
the design of the roadway?). The peak
hour measure reflects the actual travel
times occurring on non-holiday
weekdays during the morning and
afternoon peak hours. The measure is
designed to compare the longest trip
time occurring during these hours to the
amount of time desired to take the trip
as perceived by the entities that operate
the transportation system. This
measurement approach is applied to the
Interstate System and the non-Interstate
NHS in only the largest urbanized areas
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23810
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
in the country (those with a population
of 1 million or more). The proposed
measure identifies the portions of the
system where actual peak hour travel
times are no more than 50 percent
greater than the desired time to take the
trip.
As a complement to the truck
reliability measure, in Subpart F the
NPRM is proposing a measure that
reflects where trucks are experiencing
congestion on the Interstate System.
This measure identifies the portions of
the Interstate System where actual truck
travel speeds throughout the year are at
least 50 mph. This measure considers
use of the system every day throughout
the year.
The NPRM includes two proposed
measures that would be needed to carry
out the CMAQ program. The first is a
measure proposed in Subpart G that
reflects traffic congestion and the
second is a measure proposed in
Subpart H that reflects emission
reductions through the delivery of
CMAQ funded projects.
The proposed traffic congestion
measure reflects the total amount of
time during the year when highway
users have experienced excessive delay.
The measure identifies times during the
day when vehicles are travelling at
speeds below 35 mph for freeways/
expressways or 15 mph for all other
NHS roadways. The proposed measure
is designed to sum the additional travel
times weighted by traffic volumes that
occur during these excessive delay
conditions throughout the year.
Additionally, the measure is proposed
to be expressed as a rate calculated by
dividing the total excessive delay time
by the population in the area.
The proposed emission reduction
measure reflects the reductions in
particular pollutants resulting from the
delivery of CMAQ funded projects. The
measure focuses on the total emissions
reduced per fiscal year, by all CMAQfunded projects by criteria pollutant and
applicable precursors in nonattainment
and maintenance areas.
More specific details on each of these
measures, including information on the
areas where the measure is applicable,
are included in both the Performance
Management Measure Analysis Section
(Section V) and the Section-by-Section
Discussion of the General Information
and Proposed Performance Measures
Sections (Section VI). In addition,
FHWA has developed short fact sheets
for each of these measures that will be
available on the docket.
c. Incorporating the FAST Act
On December 4, 2015, the President
signed the Fixing America’s Surface
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L.114–
94; Dec. 4, 2015) into law. For the most
part, the FAST Act is consistent with
the performance management elements
introduced by MAP–21. For
convenience, this NPRM will refer to
MAP–21 throughout the preamble to
signify the fundamental changes MAP–
21 made to States’ authorities and
responsibilities for overseeing the
implementation of performance
management.
For the purposes of this NPRM, the
FAST Act made two relevant changes to
the performance management
requirements. The first is 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7), which relates to the
requirement for a significant progress
determination for NHPP targets. The
FAST Act amended this provision to
remove the term ‘‘2 consecutive
reports.’’ The FHWA has incorporated
this change into this NPRM by removing
the term ‘‘2 consecutive
determinations,’’ which was proposed
in section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), as well as
490.109(f) of the second NPRM,
published January 5, 2015, at 80 FR 326.
In section 490.109(f) of the second
NPRM, FHWA stated that if a State DOT
does not achieve or make significant
progress for its NHS performance targets
for two consecutive reporting periods
(4-year period), then the State DOT must
document in its Biennial Report the
actions it will take to achieve the
targets. The FAST Act has changed this.
As a result, this NPRM proposes to
require State DOTs to take action when
they do not make significant progress
over one reporting period, which looks
back over 2 years. With this change, the
significant progress determination is
still made every 2 years, but it looks
back over a 2-year period instead of a 4year period.
The second change the FAST Act
made is the addition of 23 U.S.C. 167(j),
which requires FHWA to determine if a
State has made significant progress
toward meeting the performance targets
related to freight movement, established
under section 150(d) and requires a
description of the actions the State will
undertake to achieve the targets if
significant progress is not made. To
meet the these requirements, FHWA has
incorporated language throughout this
NPRM proposing to require the targets
established for the measures in section
490.105(c)(6) to be included in the
significant progress process and
identifying the actions the State DOT
will undertake to achieve the targets if
significant progress is not made. The
FHWA has called these the NHFP
targets. The NHPP and NHFP use the
same process for assessing significant
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
progress and determining if significant
progress is made.
d. Costs and Benefits
The FHWA estimated the incremental
costs associated with the new
requirements proposed in this
regulatory action. The new requirements
represent a change to the current
practices of State DOTs and MPOs. The
FHWA derived the costs of the new
requirements by assessing the expected
increase in the level of effort from labor
for FHWA, State DOTs and MPOs to
standardize and update data collection
and reporting systems, as well as
establish and report targets.
To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied
the level of effort, expressed in labor
hours, with a corresponding loaded
wage rate 4 which varied by the type of
laborer needed to perform the activity.
Where necessary, capital costs were
included as well. Most of these
measures rely on the use and
availability of NPMRDS data provided
by FHWA for use by State DOTs and
MPOs. Because there is uncertainty
regarding the ongoing funding of
NPMRDS by FHWA, FHWA estimated
the cost of the proposed rule according
to two scenarios. First, assuming that
FHWA provides State DOTs and MPOs
with the required data from NPMRDS,
the 11-year undiscounted incremental
costs to comply with this rule are $165.3
million (Scenario 1).5 Alternatively,
under ‘‘worst case’’ conditions where
State DOTs would be required to
independently acquire the necessary
data, the 11-year undiscounted
incremental costs to comply with this
rule are $224.5 million (Scenario 2). The
total 11-year undiscounted cost is
approximately 36 percent higher under
Scenario 2 than under Scenario 1.
The FHWA performed three separate
break-even analyses as the primary
approach to quantify benefits. The
FHWA focused its break-even analyses
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost
Index, 2012.
5 In FHWA’s first two performance measure
NPRMs, it assessed costs over a 10-year study
period. Because FHWA is now proposing
individual effective dates for each of its
performance measure rules rather than a common
effective date, the timing of the full implementation
of the measures has shifted. Using an 11-year study
period ensures that the cost assessment includes the
first 2 performance periods following the effective
date of the rulemaking, which is comparable to
what the 10-year study period assessed in the first
two NPRMs. An 11-year study period captures the
first year costs related to preparing and submitting
the Initial Performance Report and a complete cycle
of the incremental costs that would be incurred by
State DOTs and MPOs for assembling and reporting
all required measures as a result of the proposed
rule. The FHWA anticipates that the recurring costs
beyond this timeframe would be comparable to
those estimated in the 10-year period of analysis.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23811
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
for (1) enhancing performance of the
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS by relieving congestion, and (2)
improving freight movement on the
value of travel time savings. The FHWA
estimated the number of hours spent in
congestion needed to be saved by
commuters and truck drivers in order
for the benefits of the rule to justify the
costs. For each of these break-even
analyses, FHWA presents results for
both Scenario 1 (FHWA provides access
to NPMRDS) and Scenario 2 (State
DOTs must independently acquire the
necessary data). The FHWA focused the
third break-even analysis on reducing
emissions. The FHWA estimated the
reduction in pollutant tons needed to be
achieved in order for the benefits of the
rule to justify the costs.
The aforementioned benefits are
quantified within the analysis, however,
there are other qualitative benefits
which apply to the proposed rule as a
whole that result from more informed
decisionmaking on congestion and
emissions-reducing project, program,
and policy choices. The proposed rule
also would yield greater accountability
because MAP–21-mandated reporting
would increase visibility and
transparency of transportation
decisionmaking. The data reported to
FHWA by the States would be available
to the public and would be used to
communicate a national performance
story. The FHWA is developing a public
Web site to share performance related
information. In addition, the proposed
rule would help focus the Federal-aid
highway program on achieving balanced
performance outcomes.
The results of the break-even analyses
quantified the dollar value of the
benefits that the proposed rule must
generate to outweigh the cost of the
proposed rule. The FHWA believes that
the proposed rule would surpass these
thresholds and, as a result, the benefits
of the rule would outweigh the costs.
Table 1 displays the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) A–4
Accounting Statement as a summary of
the cost and benefits calculated for this
rule.
TABLE 1—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT
Estimates
Units
Category
Primary
Benefits:
Annualized Monetized
($millions/year).
Annualized Quantified
Qualitative ...................
Costs:
Annualized Monetized
($millions/year).
Annualized Quantified
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Qualitative ...................
Transfers:
Federal Annualized
Monetized ($millions/
year).
From/To .......................
Other Annualized Monetized ($millions/
year).
From/To .......................
Effects:
State, Local, and/or
Tribal Government.
None
None
None
None
Low
.................
.................
.................
.................
None
None
None
None
.........
.........
.........
.........
Year
dollar
High
None
None
None
None
.........
.........
.........
.........
NA
NA
NA
NA
Discount
rate
(%)
.............
.............
.............
.............
7
3
7
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
................
................
................
................
Not Quantified.
Not Quantified.
More informed decisionmaking on freight-, congestion-, and air quality-related project, program, and policy choices; greater accountability due to mandated reporting, increasing
visibility and transparency; enhanced focus of the Federal-aid highway program on
achieving balanced performance outcomes.
Proposed Rule RIA.
Scenario 1:
$15,651,062.
Scenario 2:
$21,194,462.
Scenario 1:
$15,304,231.
Scenario 2:
$20,760,510.
None .................
None .................
......................
Proposed Rule RIA.
...................
...................
2012 ..........
7
11 Years ......
...................
...................
2012 ..........
3
11 Years.
None .........
None .........
..............
None .........
None .........
..............
2012 ..........
2012 ..........
..............
7
3
11 Years ......
11 Years ......
.................
None.
None .................
None .................
None .........
None .........
None .........
None .........
NA .............
NA .............
7
3
NA ................
NA ................
None.
From: ................
None .................
None .................
...................
None .........
None .........
...................
None .........
None .........
To: .............
NA .............
NA .............
7
3
.
NA ................
NA ................
None.
From: ................
...................
...................
To: .............
Scenario 1:
$15,271,675.
Scenario 2:
$21,189,733.
Scenario 1:
$14,931,176.
Scenario 2:
$20,756,223.
...................
...................
2012 ..........
7
11 Years ......
...................
...................
2012 ..........
3
11 Years.
NA .............
NA
Small Business ............
None
Wages .........................
Growth .........................
.
None
Not Measured
NA ................
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Notes
Period
covered
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Proposed Rule RIA.
None.
23812
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Acronym or abbreviation
Term
AADT .....................................................................................................
AASHTO ...............................................................................................
CAA .......................................................................................................
CFR .......................................................................................................
CMAQ ...................................................................................................
CO .........................................................................................................
DOT .......................................................................................................
EO .........................................................................................................
EPA .......................................................................................................
FAST Act ...............................................................................................
FHWA ....................................................................................................
FPM .......................................................................................................
FR .........................................................................................................
GHG ......................................................................................................
HPMS ....................................................................................................
HSIP ......................................................................................................
HSP .......................................................................................................
IFR ........................................................................................................
LOTTR ..................................................................................................
MAP–21 ................................................................................................
MPH ......................................................................................................
MPO ......................................................................................................
NAAQS ..................................................................................................
NCHRP .................................................................................................
NHFP ....................................................................................................
NHPP ....................................................................................................
NHS .......................................................................................................
NHTSA ..................................................................................................
NOX .......................................................................................................
NPMRDS ...............................................................................................
NPRM ....................................................................................................
O3 ..........................................................................................................
OMB ......................................................................................................
PM .........................................................................................................
PRA .......................................................................................................
RIA ........................................................................................................
RIN ........................................................................................................
SHSP ....................................................................................................
SME ......................................................................................................
State DOTs ...........................................................................................
TMA .......................................................................................................
TMC ......................................................................................................
TTI .........................................................................................................
U.S.C. ....................................................................................................
VMT .......................................................................................................
VOC ......................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
III. Discussion of Stakeholder
Engagement and Outreach
This section of the NPRM summarizes
DOT’s engagement and outreach with
the public and with affected
stakeholders during the NPRM
development process and the
viewpoints they shared with DOT
during these consultations. Section III
includes three sub-sections:
• Sub-section A provides a general
description of the stakeholder
consultation process;
• Sub-section B describes the broader
public consultation process; and
• Sub-section C summarizes
stakeholder viewpoints shared with
DOT. This sub-section is organized
sequentially around the three major
measurement focus areas of this
rulemaking, including: (1) system
performance and traffic congestion
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
annual average daily traffic
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Clean Air Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
Carbon monoxide
U.S. Department of Transportation
Executive Order
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
Federal Highway Administration
Freight Performance Measurement
Federal Register
Greenhouse gas
Highway Performance Monitoring System
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Highway Safety Plan
Interim Final Rule
Level of Travel Time Reliability
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
Miles per hour
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Cooperation Highway Research Program
National Highway Freight Program
National Highway Performance Program
National Highway System
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Nitrogen oxide
National Performance Management Research Data Set
Notice of proposed rulemaking
Ozone
Office of Management and Budget
Particulate matter
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Regulatory Identification Number
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Subject matter experts
State departments of transportation
Transportation Management Areas
Traffic Message Channel
Texas Transportation Institute
United States Code
Vehicle miles traveled
Volatile organic compound
measures, (2) freight movement
measures, and (3) on-road mobile source
emissions measures.
Stakeholder engagement in
developing the NPRMs is required by 23
U.S.C. 150(c) to enable DOT to obtain
technical information as well as
information on operational and
economic impacts from stakeholders
and the public. State DOTs, MPOs,
transit agencies, and private and nonprofit constituents across the country
participated in the outreach efforts. A
listing of each contact or series of
contacts influencing the agency’s
position can be found in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 (including State
DOTs, MPOs, industry groups, 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 diverse opinions on the
interpretation of technical information
on 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
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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;
• Attending meetings with non-DOT
subject matter experts, including task
forces, advocacy groups, private
industry, non-DOT Federal employees,
academia, etc., to discuss timelines,
priorities, and the most effective
methods for implementing 23 U.S.C.
150; 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
comments and suggestions about the
development of the performance
measures and by holding national
online dialogues and listening sessions
to ask the public to post their ideas on
national performance measures,
standards, and policies. The DOT also
conducted educational outreach to
inform the public about transportationrelated 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 plans to hold
public meetings to explain the
provisions contained in these NPRMs,
including this NPRM. All such meetings
will be open to the public. However, all
comments regarding the NPRM must be
submitted in writing to the rulemaking
docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
C. Summary of Viewpoints Received
This section summarizes some of the
common themes identified during the
stakeholder outreach. 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 the theme most directly
affected. The three themes include:
• Subparts E and G: Performance
Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway
System and for Assessing Traffic
Congestion.
• Subpart F: National Performance
Management Measures to Assess Freight
Movement on the Interstate System, and
• Subpart H: National Performance
Management Measures for the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions.
1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for
Subparts E and G: Performance
Management Measures To Assess
Performance of the National Highway
System and For Assessing Traffic
Congestion
The FHWA separated the stakeholder
comments on the performance and
congestion measures into four general
areas, listed below and the comments
are summarized in each of those areas.
• Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Approaches
• Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Calculation Methods
• Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Principles
• Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Challenges
a. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on System
Performance and Traffic Congestion
Measurement Approaches
Stakeholders provided input to DOT
on many different measure approaches
for assessing either performance on the
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS for the purpose of carrying out the
NHPP or assessing traffic congestion for
the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
program. In general, stakeholders’
suggested approaches fell within the
following categories:
• Speed and Traffic Flow-based
Approaches—Some stakeholders
suggested continued use of traffic flowbased performance measures already
widely in use by transportation
agencies. They suggested several
variations on traffic flow-based
approaches including use of ‘‘Level of
Service’’ classifications described in the
Transportation Research Board’s
Highway Capacity Manual, volume to
capacity ratios, or actual vehicle speeds
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23813
relative to free-flow speeds. Some
stakeholders noted that data to support
these measure approaches is widely
available.
• Spatial and Temporal Extent of
Congestion-based Approaches—Some
stakeholders suggested that the spatial
or temporal extent of congestion should
be used as the basis for measuring
performance. Suggestions included
measures of the portion of system
segments exceeding acceptable travel
times and measures of how traffic and
freight in a corridor are balanced across
parallel roads and other modes. For a
temporal-based measure, stakeholders
suggested that this information could be
used to help plan strategies for moving
traffic from more congested to less
congested routes or find the best ways
to increase corridor capacity.
• System Throughput Efficiency and
Vehicle Occupancy-based
Approaches—Some stakeholders
suggested throughput or vehicle
occupancy-based measures of
performance. Variations of throughput
and vehicle occupancy measures
suggested by stakeholders included the
quantity of vehicles, goods, or people
per lane hour or vehicle occupancy
rates. Stakeholders described
‘‘spillover’’ benefits from improving
throughput efficiency or vehicle
occupancy including fewer crashes,
lower emissions, and lower demand for
infrastructure. Some stakeholders,
however, noted that access to or
availability of throughput or occupancy
data for non-highway modes is a
challenge.
• Travel Time-based Approaches—
Many stakeholders suggested that travel
time should be used as the basis for
measuring performance. They offered
many variations for characterizing travel
time performance including ‘‘travel time
per person,’’ ‘‘travel time per vehicle,’’
‘‘travel delay per person,’’ ‘‘travel delay
per vehicle,’’ and ‘‘percent of commutes
less than 30 minutes,’’ as well as use of
these metrics to create planning time,
travel time, travel slowness, or travel
reliability indices. Some stakeholders
also noted that travel time-based
approaches might be adaptable for use
in measuring transit, pedestrian, or
bicycle system performance as data
collection methods improve in the
future. Many stakeholders who
indicated support for travel time-based
approaches stressed the importance of
travel time reliability as a parameter that
transportation users value highly. Some
stakeholders who favored travel timebased approaches suggested that travel
time measures are particularly relevant
because travel time generally varies
more than travel distance and it can be
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23814
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
influenced by State DOTs’ and MPOs’
operations practices.
• Accessibility and Trip Generationbased Approaches—Many stakeholders
indicated a preference for accessibility
measures over travel time-based
measures as a basis for measuring
performance. Several stakeholders
indicated a concern that travel timebased measures emphasize mobility and
may encourage dispersed land use
patterns; whereas accessibility measures
would emphasize ease of access to
transportation options and
consideration of where trips are
generated. Stakeholders suggested many
variations for characterizing
accessibility or trip generation including
‘‘vehicle trip rate per household,’’
‘‘transportation efficiency based on
distance,’’ ‘‘miles traveled per
employee,’’ ‘‘vanpool passenger
mileage,’’ ‘‘number of employment
locations reachable during rush hour
within the travel time of the average
commute,’’ ‘‘average home to work
commute time,’’ ‘‘number of households
able to reach businesses during off-peak
hours within a reasonable time,’’ or
‘‘time required to go from place to
place.’’ Some proponents of
accessibility measures also suggested
these measures may encourage greater
consideration of non-auto travel modes
like transit, carpooling, vanpooling,
walking, and bicycling or options like
telecommuting that tend to be more
practical on systems with greater
accessibility.
b. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Calculation Methods
Stakeholders provided considerable
input to DOT on detailed aspects of
measure calculation methods. In
general, stakeholders’ suggestions fell
within the following categories:
• Geographic Focus for Measures—
Some stakeholders suggested
performance measures should focus
only on major corridors or in urbanized
areas. They noted that current practice
emphasizes corridor-level analysis and
that the impact of heavily congested
corridors may be masked by systemwide measures that include mostly
uncongested system elements. Other
stakeholders suggested that measures
should focus on optimizing overall
system performance rather than facility
performance, with ‘‘system’’ being
defined to include multimodal facilities
as well as highways. Some stakeholders,
however, suggested measures should be
geographically scalable so that they can
be used either on individual facilities or
at a system-wide level.
• Temporal Focus for Measures—
Some stakeholders suggested that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
performance measures should place
particular emphasis on peak period
travel to maximize productivity of roads
during peak periods by minimizing
congestion, reducing growth in VMT,
and using the most cost-effective
methods to move people and goods.
Other stakeholders suggested measures
should generally be scalable on a
temporal basis so they can be evaluated
based on variable periods of time, such
as individual hours, or grouped into
peak periods.
• Travel Time Measurement
Options—Stakeholders offered several
suggestions for developing effective
travel time-based measures:
—Selection of Travel Time Percentiles
for Travel Reliability Index—Some
stakeholders suggested that when
formulating a travel reliability index,
the 85th or 90th percentile travel time
should be used rather than the 95th
percentile because the highest
percentile travel times may be outliers
that do not reflect the impacts of dayto-day operations strategies on the
system.
—Use of Travel ‘‘Slowness’’ as an
Index—Some stakeholders suggested
that reversing the widely used travel
time index creates a more
understandable metric by expressing
congestion in terms of how slowly
traffic is moving rather than in terms
of how long trips take; they suggested,
as an example, that describing a
facility or system as operating at twothirds of its desired performance (66.6
percent) is more understandable than
saying it has a travel time index of
1.50.
—Threshold Times for Travel Indices—
Some stakeholders suggested that free
flow speed is appropriate to use in
calculating travel time-based indices.
Other stakeholders indicated that free
flow or posted speeds are unrealistic
because State DOTs lack resources to
achieve free flow conditions across
their networks. ‘‘Maximum
throughput’’ speed was suggested by
some stakeholders as an alternative to
free flow speed which they indicated
is usually 70 to 85 percent of free flow
but varies by facility.
—Travel Time Data Collection—Some
stakeholders suggested collecting
origin and destination travel time data
via techniques such as license plate
surveys for vehicles or for other
modes by riding bicycle or transit
corridors to collect data.
• Methods for Improving Accuracy of
Vehicle Occupancy Counts—Some
stakeholders who supported vehicle
occupancy-based measures suggested
use of a combination of technology-
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based data collection methods for
improving the consistency of vehicle
occupancy data, such as automated
video image processing or in-vehicle
technologies like seat belt detectors, and
survey or counting techniques, such as
manual field counts, home interviews,
transit rider counts, census survey
questions, or trip generation studies at
employment centers. Stakeholders
noted that occupancy data collection
can be costly and may not need to be
comprehensive to provide reasonable
estimates.
• Use Census and American
Community Survey Data—Some
stakeholders suggested U.S. Census data
could be used to examine performance,
including information on commuting
contained in the Census. Other
stakeholders also suggested DOT could
work with the Census to develop selfmonitoring technologies, like Global
Positioning Systems (GPS), or to build
on the model of the American
Community Survey and develop a
continuous data collection resource for
more detailed commuting information.
Some stakeholders suggested
developing standardized survey
templates for communities to use for
their own travel surveys.
c. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Principles
Stakeholders provided DOT with
input on general principles for selecting
measures. In general, stakeholders’
suggestions fell within the following
categories:
• Measures Should Be Simple To
Understand—Many stakeholders
suggested that measures should be
simple for the general public to
understand, with some further
suggesting that travel time-based
measures, particularly travel reliability,
are well understood by the general
public.
• Measures Should Rely on Readily
Available Data—Some stakeholders
suggested that measures should not
include burdensome data collection
requirements and that data collection
and analysis requirements should be
flexible and relevant to community
needs. Some stakeholders noted that
investment is needed in resources such
as analysis tools and reporting
mechanisms and guidance to make
performance measures meaningful and
useful.
• Measures Should Reflect MAP–21
National Goals—Some stakeholders
suggested that DOT should select a set
of measures that reflect MAP–21
national goals that benefit from reducing
congestion while providing safer, more
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sustainable transportation systems that
increase accessibility.
• States Should Be Allowed To Select
Measures/Avoid ‘‘One-Size-Fits-All’’
Measures—Some stakeholders suggested
that selection of measures should be at
the discretion of the State DOT or MPO,
with Federal requirements focusing on
monitoring and reporting of States’
measures. It was also suggested that
performance measures should not
follow a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach
and should allow for flexibility.
Stakeholders noted that agencies have
many options for improving traffic
conditions, not only by adding capacity,
but also by improving operations or
reducing travel demand, and agencies’
choices will depend on unique
constraints determined by available
funding, physical geography, and
regional priorities. Stakeholders
suggested that FHWA should allow
agencies to tell their ‘‘story’’ via
customized measures that reflect the
unique strategies they use to manage
congestion. Other stakeholders
suggested that differences in data
availability from place to place will
preclude standardization and reasoned
that FHWA should allow variation in
measures because this will ensure
agencies begin to assess performance.
• Ensure Standardization of
Measures—Some stakeholders suggested
that although allowing use of different
measures is appealing because it gives
flexibility to States, it will also make
national-level analysis difficult. Based
on this reasoning, these stakeholders
concluded that measures should be
standardized.
• Avoid Measures That Cause Policy
Bias—Some stakeholders suggested that
the choice of measures (e.g., per vehicle
mile or per capita) will influence how
communities prioritize projects. For
example, these stakeholders explained
that policy decisions may be different if
the measure is based on per vehicle mile
crashes or per capita crashes because
reporting changes in crashes per vehicle
mile fails to reflect reductions in total
vehicle mileage.
• Measures Should Capture Wider
Impacts—Some stakeholders suggested
that performance metrics should capture
the effects of transportation investments
on economic growth, efficient land use,
environment, and community quality of
life, and should support development of
wider choices for solving congestion.
• Measures for Individual Modes—
Some stakeholders suggested metrics
should measure performance across
transportation modes as a way to
encourage development of multimodal
transportation solutions. Other
stakeholders expressed interest in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
measures that allow direct comparison
of the benefits and costs of all modes
(e.g., transit, transportation demand
management, road construction, system
management). Stakeholders noted that if
such metrics were pursued, they should
consider the full extent of externalities
in the calculation of costs. In particular,
some stakeholders suggested that travel
time-based measures should take into
account all parts of a trip (walking,
parking, driving, transit, etc.) to reflect
overall transportation network
performance.
• Measures Should Establish
Minimum Acceptable Performance
Levels—Some stakeholders suggested
that performance measures should help
transportation agencies identify where
corridors fall below minimum
performance levels and help
communities identify alternatives that
allow them to reach that minimum
performance level.
• Distinguish Between Congestion
and Reliability—Some stakeholders
noted a distinction between recurrent
congestion and travel time reliability,
noting that agencies typically have
limited control over recurrent
congestion that is caused by physical
capacity constraints. On the other hand,
stakeholders explained that reliability
can be influenced by efficient
management of non-recurring incidents.
A focus on reliability, according to these
stakeholders, would give agencies credit
for operational improvements that may
improve travel time reliability but do
not necessarily increase capacity.
d. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Challenges
Stakeholders provided DOT with
input on perceived measurement
challenges. In general, stakeholders’
suggestions fell within the following
categories:
• Travel Time-based Measures Do
Not Capture System Accessibility
Benefits—Some stakeholders expressed
concern that reliance on travel timebased measures alone may penalize
densely developed communities that
offer high levels of accessibility but not
necessarily shorter travel times.
• Measures Should Recognize That
Reducing Congestion Is Impractical in
Some Regions—Some stakeholders
suggested that measures should
acknowledge that, in fast growing areas,
the rate of congestion growth can only
be slowed down, not reversed.
• Some Measures May Favor Adding
Road Capacity Over Non-Auto Solutions
to Congestion—Some stakeholders
expressed concerns about measure
approaches they think are more likely to
encourage road capacity additions that
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23815
generate sprawl and are expensive to
maintain, versus alternative solutions
such as transit, carpools, bicycling,
telework, or shifting work hours.
Measurement approaches for which this
concern was raised included measures
that emphasize travel time per mile or
vehicle speeds. Other stakeholders
suggested that land use is a stronger
influence on decisions to add road
capacity than travel time or vehicle
speeds.
• Target Setting for Congestion Is
Premature—Some stakeholders
suggested that system (congestion)
performance measurement is one of the
least mature and least robust
measurement areas in transportation
and that developing consistent data sets
and understanding the patterns, causes,
and trends in congestion is more
important than establishing targets.
Stakeholders suggested that a set of
realistic performance targets should be
determined locally (State and region)
only after trend data and explanatory
variables have been collected, analyzed,
and made available for multiple years,
thus creating a transition period or
phased implementation of congestion
related MAP–21 performance
measurements.
• System-wide Measures Do Not
Support Project-Level Decisionmaking—
Some stakeholders expressed concern
that national-level measures of
performance are not sufficient to guide
specific investments because they are
not sensitive enough to capture the
results of specific strategies and
projects.
2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for
Subpart F: National Performance
Management Measures To Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate
System
Freight movement is
multidimensional and includes a variety
of public and private stakeholders with
unique perspectives. In addition to the
public participation and stakeholder
consultation described in Section III.A.,
of this NPRM, DOT held listening
sessions with representatives of the
freight stakeholder community from the
private and public sectors. Outreach to
stakeholders through these sessions
provided valuable information for
FHWA to consider in developing the
proposed measures. The major themes
collected from each session and relevant
academic research are detailed below.
Freight Roundtable
The FHWA held a Freight Roundtable
event that brought together membership
of the Freight Policy Council, a group of
the executive leadership in each
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23816
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
operating administration at DOT, with
multimodal industrial representatives
and State and local leaders. Discussion
was focused on freight planning and
performance measurement. Panelists
representing the freight community
provided insights into both planning
and measurement practices, issues,
needs, and opportunities. Major themes
of the subsequent discussion focused on
multimodal measurements including
reliability, trip time, access, safety,
accident recovery, and economic
measures. Predominant measure
suggestions included reliability and
travel time, which were described by a
majority of attendees as the most
valuable to the freight system user in the
movement of goods.
State-Level Stakeholders
The FHWA held a listening session
for State-level stakeholder organizations
as these organizations have followed
MAP–21’s development and DOT’s
implementation activities and will have
responsibility for reporting on the
measures. These State-level
stakeholders have advocated
transportation-related policies and
developed a significant amount of
transportation research and findings
that have contributed to the
performance measure discussions
surrounding MAP–21 implementation.
Their suggestions included measures
such as travel time, reliability, and
bottleneck identification. Specifically,
participants described travel time,
reliability and speed as important to
understand economic efficiency.
Concern was expressed regarding data
collection, cost, and burden to the
States. Additionally, participants noted
concern about external factors that are
harder to measure or consider, as well
as a lack of control over measures for
safety or economics, where States do not
want to be evaluated because they have
little control in how to influence the
measure. There was some discussion on
targets and thresholds, noting that
measuring speed and travel time against
posted speed would be challenging due
to regulators on trucks that limit speed,
and variations in external factors would
need to be considered by States in
setting targets.
In addition to the listening session,
the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) performed a comprehensive
analysis of the MAP–21 provisions and
wrote a letter that contained
recommendations approved by their
membership for the MAP–21
Performance Measure Rulemaking.
Other stakeholders and individuals
provided recommendations as well.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
These letters are all posted on the
docket for review. For freight movement
on the Interstate, these
recommendations included the
following:
• National level performance
measures may not be the same
performance measures State DOTs
would use for planning and
programming of transportation projects
and funding.
• National level performance
measures should be specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, timely,
and simple.
• National level performance
measures should focus on areas and
assets where State DOTs have control.
• The initial set of national-level
performance measures should build
upon existing performance measures,
management practices, data sets, and
reporting processes.
• National level measures should be
forward thinking to allow continued
improvement over time.
• Messaging the impact and meaning
of the national-level measures to the
public and other audiences is vital to
the success of this initiative.
• Flexibility in target setting to allow
States to set their own thresholds and
targets.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and Other Regional Organizations
Like State-level stakeholders, MPO
and regional organization freight
representatives provided input in the
MAP–21 outreach process for freight
movement on the Interstate performance
measures. In a listening session held
with these representatives, key themes
were consideration of hours of service
for truck operators, economic efficiency,
job creation measures, environmental
measures, congestion, travel speed, and
reliability. These stakeholders also
identified information from shippers as
necessary for interpreting the user
perspective. Representatives supported
travel time and reliability as most
critical for measurement and indicated
that these measures were most
important for businesses in their
regions.
Additional regional organization
stakeholders, representing both urban
and rural areas, further called for
consistency in the adoption of measures
that could best describe the freight
system while considering differences in
mode, geography, locations of freight
facilities, and practices. Additional
concerns were related to how to adapt
freight performance measures to current
measures that may not provide the
correct picture of freight movement
even though they are good measures for
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
passenger transport or some other
function. Finally, representatives
supported measures that identified
reliability and the refinement and use of
data for measuring reliability on freight
corridors.
Trucking Industry and Freight Business
Stakeholders
The FHWA held listening sessions
with stakeholders representing a subset
of the freight industry, primarily
trucking, whose performance would be
measured as part of this rule. These
stakeholders represent various parts of
the flow of goods from origin to
destination and depend on the freight
system for on-time deliveries of goods.
More specifically, these stakeholders
include professional truckers such as
corporate drivers, owner-operators, and
retired truckers, representatives of
trucking companies, shippers, and
related businesses.
The main comments received from
these stakeholders related to truck
parking, highway average speeds,
bottlenecks, safety, oversize and
overweight inconsistencies, tolls, and
delay. Average speed was important to
stakeholders because it provided drivers
and industrial planners with the
information they needed to plan routes
and delivery schedules. Stakeholders
identified reliability as important
because it provides the driver with the
flexibility to plan routes and deliveries
by knowing what to expect at what time.
One participant noted that it is very
difficult for a driver to say that average
speed is more important than travel
time or reliability—this depends on
time of day or where the driver needs
to go. The participant gave examples
where he could drive in and out of a
metropolitan area without issue at one
time of day but have significant delays
at other times. Time of day and other
external factors were said to be
important when measuring
performance.
Some shipper and business owner
comments, as well as those of their own
drivers, suggested that performance
measures for freight include safety,
travel time, hours of service, trends of
delay, speeds, and connections to other
modes or access. They said time was
critical because travel times are useful
in planning deliveries. Further,
measuring trends of delay could help
identify better opportunities for route
plans. These stakeholders noted that
bottlenecks, speed, and travel time
information were important to measure
and further, identified speed as a useful
measure for determining bottlenecks.
In April 2013, FHWA sought
clarification from stakeholders on
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
comments made during the listening
sessions, specifically on measure
thresholds and target setting. In
subsequent outreach, the American
Trucking Association, the OwnerOperator Independent Drivers
Association, and AASHTO primarily
reiterated previous comments that, in
developing the measure, FHWA should
balance the public and private
perspective by providing flexibility to
States for assessing freight movement
and developing a measure that would be
useful to the freight industry.
a. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Approaches
Freight stakeholders provided diverse
perspectives on approaches for
assessing freight movement on the
Interstate System including the use of
measures based on accessibility, delay,
speed, safety, parking availability,
bottleneck identification, accident
recovery, consistency in oversize/
overweight vehicle practices, tolling
practices, hours-of-service for truck
operators, environmental impacts, and
economic impacts. A common theme
was the importance of speed, reliability,
and travel time measures to freight
system users because they can use this
information to plan freight movements.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Challenges
Stakeholders provided input to DOT
on the following perceived
measurement challenges:
• Avoid Additional Burden for
Agencies—Stakeholders expressed
concern regarding the cost and burden
to the States of freight data collection.
• Lack of Control Over Performance
Outcomes—Some stakeholders noted
concern about measuring and
influencing external factors, such as
safety and economic impacts, where
agencies have little control over
measure results.
• Freight Measures are not the same
as Broader System Performance
Measures—Some stakeholders
expressed concern that broad systemlevel measures of performance may not
adequately represent freight conditions.
c. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Methods
Stakeholders provided input to DOT
on detailed aspects of measure
calculation methods. In general,
stakeholders’ suggestions fell within the
following categories:
• Use of ‘‘Posted Speed’’ in
Performance Measures—Some
stakeholders noted that posted speed is
not a satisfactory baseline for
performance measures because of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
use of embedded governors or speed
control devices companies install on
trucks that limit speed and variations in
other external factors.
• Reliability Thresholds—
Stakeholders supported the use of a
reliability measure as it is universally
used and understood among
transportation agencies and freight
representatives. Reliability is often
measured in the form of an index such
as a Planning Time Index or Buffer
Index, which both express a ratio of the
worst travel time compared to a free
flow, normal day, or average travel time.
Freight stakeholders supported the
numerator of a measurement index to be
defined as the 95th percentile because it
represents the higher degree of certainty
for on-time arrival that freight
stakeholders use in their route planning
and deliveries. Understanding the gap
between normal travel time and the 95th
percentile will help to work toward
operational and capital strategies that
will improve reliability. Improving
freight reliability is critical for freight
stakeholders as it lessens transportation
costs associated with delay. Travel
times above a 95th percentile are
usually attributed to unique and
outlying circumstances, such as a major
accident or event that significantly shuts
down the roadway.
• Measure Definitions—Stakeholders
mentioned research by the National
Cooperation Highway Research Program
(NCHRP), including NCHRP Report 20–
24 (37)G Technical Guidance for
Deploying National Level Performance
Measures, that defines ‘‘average speed’’
as the average speed of trucks over a 24hour period and ‘‘Reliability’’ as the
ratio of the 95th percentile travel time
to mean segment travel time.
d. Stakeholders’ Viewpoints on
Measurement Principles
Stakeholders provided DOT with
some general principles for selecting
measures. In general, stakeholders’
suggestions fell within the following
categories:
• Flexibility in Measurement
Approaches—Some stakeholders
suggested that national requirements for
performance measurement should be
flexible enough to allow for variation in
regional and State geographic
characteristics and modal options.
• National Measures May Not Match
State DOT’s Measures—National-level
performance measures may not be the
same performance measures State DOTs
would use for planning and
programming of transportation projects
and funding.
• Measures Should Address Issues
that State DOTs Control—National-level
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23817
performance measures should focus on
areas and assets where State DOTs have
control.
• Measures Should Build on Past
Experience—Stakeholders emphasized
that the initial set of national-level
performance measures should build
upon existing performance measures,
management practices, data sets, and
reporting processes.
• Measures Should Allow
Improvement Over Time—Stakeholders
suggested that national-level measures
should be forward thinking to allow
continued improvement over time.
• Measures Should be Accompanied
by Communication—Stakeholders
suggested that messaging the impact and
meaning of the national-level measures
to the public and other audiences is
vital to the success of this initiative.
• Flexibility in Target Setting—
Stakeholders suggested that there
should be flexibility in target setting to
allow States to establish their own
thresholds and targets.
• Specificity, Simplicity, and other
General Characteristics—Stakeholders
advocated for specific, measurable,
attainable, realistic, and timely national
level performance measures.
Additionally, stakeholders advocated
for simplicity, arguing that measures
should be simple and easy to
understand.
3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for
Subpart H: National Performance
Management Measures for the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions
Stakeholders provided DOT with
input on data collection and reporting
related to on-road mobile source
emissions. Suggestions generally fell in
the following categories:
• Consistency with Current CMAQ
Reporting Requirements and Practices—
Some stakeholders suggested that onroad mobile source emissions measures
should be consistent with current
CMAQ program reporting requirements
and practices because quantification of
CMAQ project-related emissions
reductions is already required under 23
U.S.C. 149. Stakeholders emphasized
that any new performance data and
reporting should be consistent with and
build upon current practice.
• Avoid Imposing Burdens on Areas
in Attainment—Some stakeholders
suggested new measures should not
burden those parts of the country with
monitoring when none is required by
the Clean Air Act (CAA). It was noted
that States without nonattainment areas
are exempt from the burden of
developing sophisticated emissions
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23818
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
analysis tools and should not be
required to do so going forward.
• Geographic Applicability of
Reporting—Some stakeholders
suggested that emissions reporting
should be limited solely to large
urbanized areas where air quality
planning efforts are focused and most
CMAQ funding is directed. Other
stakeholders suggested reporting also
should include small urban areas.
• Emissions Reporting Methods—
Stakeholders suggested various analytic
and empirical methods for performance
measurement:
—Consistency with EPA or California
Emissions Models—Performance
measures should be consistent with
emissions modeling tools developed
by EPA (Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator—MOVES) 6 and the
California Air Resources Board
(EMFAC).7
—Applicability of EPA-recommended
Sustainable Transportation
Measures—The EPA’s ‘‘Guide to
Sustainable Transportation
Performance Measures’’ is a helpful
resource for developing on-road
mobile source emission reporting
approaches.
—Applicability of Envision Tomorrow
ArcGIS Tool—Envision Tomorrow,8
which is an extension for ArcGIS,
could be a helpful tool for creating
land-use scenarios and assessing their
environmental and other impacts.
—Region-specific Fleet Information—
MPOs may wish to consider using
region specific fleet mix information
when calculating emissions.
• Agency Emissions Data
Capabilities—Some stakeholders
cautioned that State DOTs and MPOs
vary in their capabilities to collect,
replicate, and report data on an annual
basis.
• Emissions Reporting should Include
Greenhouse Gases—It was suggested
that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be
tracked since GHGs are correlated with
fuel use and air toxins.
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
transformation, and for the first time,
recipients of Federal-aid highway funds
make transportation investments to
achieve individual targets that
collectively make progress toward
national goals.
The MAP–21 provisions that focus on
the achievement of performance
outcomes are contained in a number of
sections of the law that are administered
by different DOT agencies.
Consequently, these provisions require
an implementation approach that
includes a number of separate but
related rulemakings, some from other
modes within DOT. A summary of the
rulemakings related to this proposed
rule is provided in this section and
additional information regarding all
related implementation actions is
available on the FHWA Web site.9
A. Summary of Related Rulemakings
The DOT’s proposal regarding MAP–
21’s performance requirements will be
presented through several rulemakings.
As a brief 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 has sought or plans to seek
comment on each of these rulemakings.
1. First Federal-Aid Highway
Performance Measure Rule (FR Vol.81
No.50),10 Focused on Highway Safety
a. Propose and define national measures
for the HSIP
b. State and MPO target establishment
requirements for the Federal-aid
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress
toward the achievement of targets
d. Performance progress reporting
requirements and timing
e. Discuss how FHWA intends to
implement MAP–21 performancerelated provisions.
2. Second Federal-Aid Highway
Performance Measure Rule (RIN: 2125–
AF53),11 Focused on Highway Asset
Conditions.
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 standards for Interstate
System pavement conditions.
3. Third Federal-Aid Highway
Performance Measure Rule, Focused on
Assessing Performance of the NHS,
Freight Movement on the Interstate
System, and CMAQ (This NPRM)
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. Determination of significant progress
toward the achievement of targets for
NHFP as well as the NHPP
e. Provide a summary of all three
performance measures rules (Table 2
below lists all proposed measures and
the entire Part 490 is in the docket).
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RULEMAKINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURE RULES
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Rulemaking
23 CFR Part
490 section
Proposed performance measure
Safety PM Final Rule .....
Safety PM Final Rule .....
Safety PM Final Rule .....
490.207(a)(1) ....
490.207(a)(2) ....
490.207(a)(3) ....
Number of fatalities ............................................
Rate of fatalities ..................................................
Number of serious injuries .................................
6 Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator—MOVES:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.
7 California Air Resources Board (EMFAC): https://
www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_
motor_vehicles.
8 Envision Tomorrow: https://www.envision
tomorrow.org/about-envision-tomorrow/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
9 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/
qapm.cfm.
10 National Performance Management Measures;
Highway Safety Improvement Program, 81 FR
13882 (Published on March 15, 2016) (codified at
23 CFR part 490).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Measure applicability
All public roads.
All public roads.
All public roads.
11 National Performance Management Measures
Assessing Pavement Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program and Bridge
Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program, 80 FR 325 (proposed January 5, 2015) (to
be codified at 23 CFR part 490).
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23819
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RULEMAKINGS TO IMPLEMENT THE NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURE RULES—
Continued
Rulemaking
23 CFR Part
490 section
Proposed performance measure
Safety PM Final Rule .....
Safety PM Final Rule .....
490.207(a)(4) ....
490.207(a)(5) ....
Infrastructure PM NPRM
490.307(a) ........
Infrastructure PM NPRM
490.307(a)(2) ....
Infrastructure PM NPRM
490.307(a)(3) ....
Infrastructure PM NPRM
490.307(a)(4) ....
Infrastructure PM NPRM
490.407(c)(1) ....
Infrastructure PM NPRM
490.407(c)(2) ....
System Performance PM
NPRM.
System Performance PM
NPRM.
System Performance PM
NPRM.
System Performance PM
NPRM.
System Performance PM
NPRM.
System Performance PM
NPRM.
System Performance PM
NPRM: CMAQ –traffic
congestion.
490.507(a)(1) ....
Rate of serious injuries .......................................
Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries.
Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.
Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in in Poor condition.
Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate
NHS in Good condition.
Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate
NHS in Poor condition.
Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in
Good condition.
Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in
Poor condition.
Percent of the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel.
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for
Reliable Travel.
Percent of the Interstate System where peak
hour travel times meet expectations.
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak
hour travel times meet expectations.
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel Time.
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage
Uncongested.
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita ...
System Performance PM
NPRM: CMAQ—Onroad mobile source
emissions.
490.807 ............
490.507(a)(2) ....
490.507(b)(1) ....
490.507(b)(2) ....
490.607(a) ........
490.607(b) ........
490.707 ............
Total tons of emissions reduced from CMAQ
projects for applicable criteria pollutants and
precursors.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Update to the Metropolitan and
Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN:
2125–AF52) 12
5. Updates to the Highway Safety
Improvement Program Regulations (FR
Vol.81 No.50) 13
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 of other
performance-based plans into the
metropolitan and statewide planning
process
d. Discussion in Metropolitan and
Statewide Transportation
Improvement Programs section
documenting how the programs are
designed to achieve targets
e. New performance reporting
requirements in the Metropolitan
transportation plan.
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.
12 Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation
Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 79
FR 31784 (proposed June 2, 2014) (to be codified
at 23 CFR part 450).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset
Management Plan Rule (RIN: 2125–
AF57) 14
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.
13 Highway
Safety Improvement Program, 81 FR
13722 (published on March 15, 2016).
14 Asset Management Plan, 80 FR 9231 (proposed
on February, 20, 2015)(to be codified at 23 CFR part
515).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Measure applicability
All public roads.
All public roads.
The Interstate System.
The Interstate System.
The non-Interstate NHS.
The non-Interstate NHS.
NHS.
NHS.
The Interstate System.
The non-Interstate NHS.
The Interstate System in urbanized areas with a
population over 1 million.
The non-Interstate NHS in urbanized areas with
a population over 1 million.
The Interstate System.
The Interstate System.
The NHS in urbanized areas with a population
over 1 million in nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants under
the CMAQ program.
Projects financed with CMAQ funds in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for one or
more of the criteria pollutants under the
CMAQ program.
7. Transit State of Good Repair Rule
(RIN: 2132–AB20) 15
a. Define state of good repair and
establish measures
b. Transit asset management plan
content and reporting requirements
c. Target establishment requirements for
public transportation agencies and
MPOs.
8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132–
AB20) 16
a. Define transit safety standards
b. Transit safety plan content and
reporting requirements.
15 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/FR2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf
16 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23820
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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.
a. Highway Safety Plan (HSP) contents,
• Congestion reduction—To achieve a
including establishment of
significant reduction in congestion on
performance measures, targets, and
the NHS.
reporting requirements
• System reliability—To improve the
b. Review and approval of HSPs.
efficiency of the surface transportation
system.
B. Organization of MAP–21
• Freight movement and economic
Performance-Related Provisions
vitality—To improve the national freight
The FHWA organized the many
network, strengthen the ability of rural
performance-related provisions within
communities to access national and
MAP–21 into six elements as defined
international trade markets, and support
below:
regional economic development.
• National Goals—Goals or program
• Environmental sustainability—To
purpose established in MAP–21 to focus enhance the performance of the
the Federal-aid highway program on
transportation system while protecting
specific areas of performance.
and enhancing the natural environment.
• Measures—Establishment of
• Reduced project delivery delays—
measures by FHWA to assess
To reduce project costs, promote jobs
performance and condition in order to
and the economy, and expedite the
carry out performance-based Federal-aid movement of people and goods by
highway programs.
accelerating project completion through
• Targets—Establishment of targets
eliminating delays in the project
by recipients of Federal-aid highway
development and delivery process,
funding for each of the measures to
including reducing regulatory burdens
document expectations of future
and improving agencies’ work practices.
performance.
These national goals will largely be
• Plans—Development of strategic
supported through the metropolitan and
and/or tactical plans by recipients of
statewide planning process, which is
Federal-aid highway funding to identify discussed under a separate rulemaking
strategies and investments that will
(RIN: 2125–AF52) to update the
address performance needs.
Metropolitan and Statewide Planning
• Reports—Development of reports by Regulations at 23 CFR part 450.
recipients of Federal funding that would
2. Measures
document progress toward the
The MAP–21 requires the
achievement of targets, including the
establishment of performance measures,
effectiveness of Federal-aid highway
in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs,
investments.
and other stakeholders, that would do
• Accountability—Requirements
the following:
developed by FHWA for recipients of
• Carry out the NHPP and assess the
Federal funding to use to achieve or
condition of pavements on the Interstate
make significant progress for targets
System and the NHS (excluding the
established for performance.
The following provides a summary of Interstate System), the condition of
MAP–21 provisions, as they relate to the bridges on the NHS, and performance of
the Interstate System and NHS
six elements listed above, including a
(excluding the Interstate System);
reference to other related rulemakings
• Carry out the HSIP and assess
that should be considered for a more
serious injuries and fatalities per VMT
comprehensive view of MAP–21
and the number of serious injuries and
performance management
fatalities;
implementation.
• Carry out the CMAQ program and
1. National Goals
assess traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions; and
The MAP–21 sec. 1203 establishes
• Assess freight movement on the
national goals to focus the Federal-aid
Interstate System.
highway program. The following
The MAP–21 also requires the
national goals are codified at 23 U.S.C.
Secretary to establish the data elements
150(b):
necessary to collect and maintain
• Safety—To achieve a significant
standardized data to carry out a
reduction in traffic fatalities and serious
performance-based approach.18
The FHWA proposed to issue three
17 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State
rulemakings in sequence to implement
Highway Grant Programs, Interim Final Rule, 78 FR
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
9. Highway Safety Grant Programs Rule
(National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) Interim Final
Rule 17 (IFR), RIN: 2127–AL30, 2127–
AL29)
4986 (Jan. 23, 2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR part
1200).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
18 23
PO 00000
U.S.C. 150(c)(1)
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the measures for the areas listed above.
The first rulemaking, issued as a NPRM
on March 11, 2014 and published as a
final rule on March 15, 2016, 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. The second NPRM
focused on the measures to assess the
condition of pavements and bridges,
and this third NPRM proposes measures
for the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C.
150(c).
The FHWA had proposed in the prior
performance management NPRMs to
establish one common effective date for
its three performance measure final
rules. While FHWA recognizes that one
common effective date could be easier
for State DOTs and MPOs to implement,
the process to develop and implement
all of the Federal-aid highway
performance measures required in
MAP–21 has been lengthy. It is taking
more than 3 years since the enactment
of MAP–21 to issue all three
performance measure NPRMs (the first
performance management NPRM was
published on March 11, 2014; the
second NPRM was published on January
5, 2015). Rather than waiting for all
three rules to be final before
implementing the MAP–21 performance
measure requirements, FHWA has
decided to phase in the effective dates
for the three final rules for these
performance measures so that each of
the three performance measures rules
will have individual effective dates.
This allows FHWA and State DOTs to
begin implementing some of the
performance requirements much sooner
than waiting for the rulemaking process
to be complete for all the rules. The
FHWA believes that individual
implementation dates will also help
State DOTs transition to performance
based planning.
On March 15, 2016, FHWA published
a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50) covering
the safety-related elements of the
Federal-aid Highway Performance
Measures Rulemaking. With the
staggered effective dates, the Rule will
be implemented in its entirety before
the other two rules are finalized.
Based on the timing of each
individual rulemaking, FHWA would
provide additional guidance to
stakeholders on how to best integrate
the new requirements into their existing
processes. Under this approach, FHWA
expects that even though the
implementation for each rule would
occur as each final rule is published,
implementation for the second rule
would ultimately be aligned with the
third rule through a common
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
performance period. In the second
performance management measure
NPRM, FHWA proposed that the first
4-year performance period would start
on January 1, 2016. However, FHWA
proposes in this NPRM that the first
performance period would begin on
January 1, 2018. This would align the
performance periods and reporting
requirements for the proposed measures
in the second and third performance
management measure NPRMs. The
FHWA has placed on the docket a
timeline that illustrates how this
transition could be implemented.
However, FHWA seeks comment from
the public on what an appropriate
effective date(s) could be. 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.19
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 was proposed in the second
rulemaking.20 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 proposed in a separate
rulemaking to establish an Asset
Management Plan (RIN 2125–AF57) for
the NHS.21
Separate sections of MAP–21 require
the establishment of additional
measures to assess public transportation
performance.22 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 Federal Transit Administration
(FTA).
In regard to the Federal Lands
Transportation Program, FHWA
anticipates working with eligible
Federal entities to establish performance
measures.
3. Targets
The MAP–21 requires State DOTs to
establish performance targets reflecting
measures established for the Federal-aid
highway program 23 and requires MPOs
to establish performance targets for
these measures where applicable.24 The
first NPRM proposed the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the
19 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/
schedule.cfm.
20 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
21 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
22 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329.
23 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
24 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
establishment of safety performance
targets, and was published as a final
rule on March 15, 2016. The second
NPRM and the third Federal-aid
highway measure NPRM discusses
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.25 A separate rulemaking to
update the Metropolitan and Statewide
Planning Regulations (RIN 2125–AF52)
at 23 CFR 450 discusses this
coordination requirement.
Further, MAP–21 requires State
Highway Safety Offices to establish
targets for 11 core highway safety
program outcome measures in the State
HSP, which NHTSA has implemented
through an Interim Final Rule,26 and for
recipients of public transportation
Federal funding and MPOs to establish
state of good repair and safety targets.27
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.
4. Plans
A number of provisions within MAP–
21 require States and MPOs to develop
plans that provide strategic direction for
addressing performance needs. For the
Federal-aid highway program these
provisions require: State DOTs to
develop an Asset Management Plan; 28
State DOTs to update their SHSP; 29
MPOs serving large TMAs in areas of
nonattainment or maintenance to
develop a CMAQ Performance Plan; 30
MPOs to include a System Performance
Report in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan; 31 and State DOTs
and MPOs to include a discussion, to
the maximum extent practical, in their
Transportation Improvement Program
25 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).
26 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). An eleventh core outcome measure
for bicycle fatalities was added after the publication
of the Interim Final Rule and is available at
https://www.ghsa.org/html/resources/planning/
index.html.
27 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.
28 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(2).
29 23 U.S.C. 148(d).
30 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
31 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23821
(TIP) as to how the program would
achieve the performance targets they
have established for the area.32 In
addition, State DOTs are encouraged to
develop a State Freight Plan 33 to
document planned activities and
investments with respect to freight. This
rulemaking does not discuss any
requirements to develop or how to use
these plans, with the exception of some
discussion of the CMAQ Performance
Plan. Rather, a discussion on the
development and use of these plans will
be included in the respective
rulemakings or guidance 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.34
5. Reports
The MAP–21 sec. 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 a State DOT’s asset
management plan for the NHS, progress
in achieving targets, and ways in which
a State DOT is addressing congestion at
freight bottlenecks.35 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
second Performance Measure NPRM).
Additional progress reporting is
required under the CMAQ program,
Metropolitan transportation planning,
elements of the Public Transportation
Act of 2012, and the Motor Vehicle and
Highway Safety Improvement Act of
2012. Also, State DOTs should include
a system performance report in their
statewide transportation plan. These
reporting provisions are discussed in
separate rulemakings and guidance and
are not discussed in this rulemaking,
with the exception of some reporting
required by MPOs as part of the CMAQ
program.
32 23
U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).
sec. 1118.
34 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/
qapm.cfm.
35 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
33 MAP–21,
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23822
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6. 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, and one provision within
FAST Act (Section 1116 codified at 23
U.S.C. 167(j)) under NHFP 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. The FAST Act Section 1406
modified the NHPP significant progress
language and added language for the
NHFP. Accordingly, for NHPP and
NHFP, if the State DOT has not
achieved or made significant progress
toward the achievement of applicable
targets in a single FHWA biennial
determination, then the State DOT must
document in its next biennial report the
actions it will take to achieve the
targets.
Please note that FHWA proposes in
section 490.109(e) that FHWA would
consider a State DOT has made
significant progress toward the
achievement of an NHPP or NHFP target
when either: (1) The actual condition/
performance level is equal to or better
than the State DOT established target;
(2) or the actual condition/performance
is better than the State DOT identified
baseline of condition/performance. So
the term ‘‘achieved or made significant
progress’’ is synonymous with the term
‘‘made significant progress’’ throughout
this NPRM. This provision is discussed
in the second performance measure
NPRM and in this NPRM.
For the HSIP, if the State DOT does
not achieve or make significant progress
for 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.36 The first performance measure
NPRM discussed this provision, and it
is codified in the final rule that covers
the safety-related elements of the
Federal-aid Highway Performance
Measures Rulemaking published on
March 15, 2016.
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.37 This provision was
discussed in the second performance
measure NPRM, which proposed
36 23
37 23
U.S.C. 148(i).
U.S.C. 119(f).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
pavement and bridge performance
measures for the NHS.
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.38 If the State
DOT does not meet these special rules,
which contain minimum performance
standards, then it must dedicate a
portion of HSIP funding (in the case of
the high risk rural road special rule) or
document in their SHSP actions it
intends to take to improve performance
(in the case of the older driver and
pedestrian special rule). Guidance on
how FHWA will administer these two
special rules is provided on FHWA’s
MAP–21 Web site.39
C. 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. In this regard, 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
38 23
U.S.C. 148(g).
39 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/
guidehrrr.cfm and https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/
guidance/guideolder.cfm.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
outcomes that can be reported at a
national level.
• Minimize the Number of
Measures—identify only the most
necessary measures that will be required
for target establishment and progress
reporting. Limit the number of measures
to 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 the
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
decisionmakers 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 the entity required to
establish the 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 will be learning a great
deal as implementation occurs.
The FHWA considered these
principles in this and previous NPRMs
and encourages comments on the extent
to which the 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
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
This section of the NPRM summarizes
the process FHWA used to consider
potential performance measures,
including alternate data sources and
potential measures. The FHWA’s
analysis was based on consideration of
viewpoints from several sources
including:
• Knowledge of technical experts
within DOT and FHWA on the current
state of practice for measuring system
performance, freight movement, traffic
congestion, and on-road mobile source
emissions;
• Information provided by external
stakeholders received directly or
captured as part of organized
stakeholder listening sessions;
• Information provided by external
stakeholders received indirectly through
informal contact such as telephone
calls, email, or letters; and
• Measures that have been
recommended and documented in
nationally recognized reports such as
the assessment of measurement
readiness documented in the 2011 final
report for NCHRP Project 20–24(37)G,
‘‘Technical Guidance for Deploying
National Level Performance
Measurements.’’
Compared with the two previous
NPRMs in this series, the measurement
areas covered by this NPRM are more
varied from State to State; consequently,
stakeholders’ consensus about
approaches for measuring performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
is inconsistent. To aid its analysis of
alternate measurement options for this
NPRM specifically, FHWA relied on an
expanded set of qualitative criteria
(which supplement the assessment
factors/criteria utilized in the other
performance measure NPRMs) to ensure
that a set of measures established
through this rulemaking would allow
for:
• A national performance story to be
communicated in a credible and reliable
manner;
• State DOTs and MPOs to consider
their unique expectations of desirable
performance;
• The potential for use across
multiple surface transportation modes;
• One core set of data to be used to
assess system performance, traffic
congestion, and freight movement; and
• The potential utilization of new
data as technology progresses.
Section V includes three sub-sections,
which describe FHWA’s assessment of
measures using the expanded set of
criteria as well as the assessment factors
and criteria used in the two previous
performance measure NPRMs:
• Sub-Section A—Analysis and
assessment of potential data sources,
measurement methodologies, and
proposed measures for measuring
system performance and traffic
congestion;
• Sub-Section B—Analysis and
assessment of potential data sources,
measurement methodologies, and
proposed measures for measuring
freight movement, and
• Sub-Section C—Analysis and
assessment of potential data sources,
measurement methodologies, and
proposed measures for measuring onroad mobile source emissions.
Also, each sub-section below
describes FHWA’s evaluation of the
measures using a common methodology
to identify gaps that could impact
successful implementation of proposed
performance measures.
A. Selection of Measures for Subparts E
and G—System Performance and Traffic
Congestion
This sub-section describes FHWA’s
analysis of data types, sources, and
measurement methods to support
potential measures. We also include a
brief history of, and lessons learned
from, FHWA’s research on congestion
and reliability performance measures.
Lastly, this sub-section describes
FHWA’s assessment of proposed
measures including: (1) Percentage of
system providing for reliable travel
times; (2) percentage of system
providing where peak hour travel times
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23823
meet expectations; and (3) annual
excessive delay per capita.
System Performance and Traffic
Congestion Data Types and Sources
Considered by FHWA
The FHWA considered several
potential data sources for use in
measuring system performance and
traffic congestion including travel speed
and time data, travel volume data,
vehicle throughput data, and other trip
information on data.
Travel Speed or Travel Time Data—
Many State DOTs, MPOs, local agencies,
and travel corridor partnerships make
use of vehicle speed and travel time
data sets to manage system operations or
report performance. The FHWA
recognizes that travel time or speed does
not provide information on the purpose
of trip, trip origin and destination,
transportation mode, or occupancy
rates. However, FHWA has been
working to advance the quality of this
data. One way FHWA has done this is
by acquiring and making available to
State and local governments a national
travel time data set, the NPMRDS, to
support national, State, and local system
performance and congestion reporting,
research and analysis needs. At this
time, FHWA finds that the NPMRDS is
the only national travel speed and travel
time data source available to State DOTs
and MPOs that could reliably support
all the performance reporting needs of
this rulemaking.
Traffic Volume Data—All State DOTs
report annual average daily traffic
(AADT) for all Federal-aid eligible
roadways to FHWA’s HPMS database.
All State DOTs also voluntarily provide
monthly counts of AADT to FHWA,
which FHWA uses to produce monthly
national traffic volume trend
information.40 The FHWA believes,
however, that traffic volume data offers
an incomplete picture of either system
performance or traffic congestion
because it lacks information about
traffic volume by specific times of the
day, and because volume counts are
based on information collected at a
limited number of locations. As these
weaknesses do affect the accuracy or
value of volume counts, FHWA
concluded that volume data would be a
poor choice as the sole data source for
measuring system performance or traffic
congestion.
Traffic Throughput Data—Some
researchers and practitioners have used
data on the total number of vehicles or
persons passing through a specific
40 FHWA Traffic Volume Trends: https://www.
fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/
tvt.cfm.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23824
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
location during a defined time period to
measure system performance and/or
traffic congestion. The FHWA believes
that performance throughput data is not
widely available at a national level nor
is it routinely measured on a systemwide basis in States. However, we seek
comment on the use and availability of
performance throughput data.
To measure throughput on the NHS
would require near constant vehicle
count/volume data that does not exist
today except for a very limited number
of locations (usually those locations
where HPMS requires reporting of
volume). Person count data, which
would be used for measuring person
throughput, is typically based on
vehicle occupancy which is typically
reported as an average based on surveys
(including the U.S. Census) or as a set
multiplier to vehicles (e.g., 1.1
occupants per vehicle), although limited
counts at single locations on roadways
are often undertaken. Classification of
vehicles data (for assigning person trips)
is also available in a very limited
number of locations and would be
required for measuring the number of
people in buses or vans, for example.
The FHWA concludes that an almost
complete lack of data availability makes
throughput data impractical as a
measure of performance. The FHWA
recognizes, however, that improvements
in traffic data collection technologies
could offer the potential to measure
throughput on a system-wide basis in
the future.
Other/Trip Information—The FHWA
also considered various alternative data
types related to trip characteristics that
offer insights on system performance
and traffic congestion such as typical
travel times, trip purpose, and trip
origin and destination information. This
data is generally collected using
surveys, such as the American
Community Survey, or regional travel
surveys produced by MPOs that sample
a statistically representative portion of
all travelers. Although surveys of this
kind can provide valuable information
to help plan and manage transportation
demand, FHWA believes the
information captured could not easily
be used to support a national
performance measure because these
surveys are administered infrequently
and are not referenced to specific
locations.
A summary of FHWA’s analysis of the
viability of various data types to support
national measures to assess system
performance and traffic congestion is
provided in Table 3 below:
TABLE 3—SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF DATA TYPES FOR USE IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL MEASURES TO ASSESS SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION
National data
source available?
Update frequency
Granularity
Speed or Travel Time ........................
Traffic Volume ....................................
Throughput .........................................
Trip Information ..................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Information source
Yes .........................
Yes .........................
No ..........................
Yes .........................
Monthly ..................
Annual ....................
Varies .....................
Annual ....................
Roadway segment .............................
Roadway segment .............................
Specific Corridors ...............................
Regional .............................................
Based on the discussion in this
section, FHWA considered use of travel
time, speed, or traffic volume data to
support measures for system
performance and traffic congestion.
Request for comments: FHWA
recognizes limitations in the availability
of data could be resolved in the future
with technology advancement. The
FHWA seeks comments on potential
data sources and technologies related to
system performance and traffic
congestion measures, including:
1. Trip Information Data: The FHWA
is seeking comments on approaches for
gathering travel, trip origin and
destination, transportation mode, or
occupancy rates information on a
routine and system-wide basis.
2. Throughput Data: The FHWA is
seeking comment on approaches for
gathering throughput data for traffic
congestion that would capture the total
number of travelers passing through
segments that make up a full system on
a regular basis.
3. Survey Data: The FHWA recognizes
that survey data available today offers
only limited application to the
development of performance measures;
technologies available to capture large
volumes of data on the movement of
people could provide the potential to
capture trip-related information that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
could be useful in managing
transportation performance. The FHWA
is seeking comment on approaches that
can be used to capture trip-related
information on a more routine and
system-wide basis.
System Performance and Traffic
Congestion Measures Considered by
FHWA
The FHWA identified and considered
a variety of approaches to express travel
time, speed, or traffic volume data as
measures of system performance or
traffic congestion including travel delay,
a travel time index, travel time, travel
time reliability, or Level of Service. A
summary of how these suggestions and
approaches were considered by FHWA
is provided below:
Travel Delay-Based Measure—Delay
is typically a corridor or system-level
indicator of additional travel time or
slower travel speed when compared to
the desired time or the desired speed of
travel; it is easily understood by
transportation users and is meaningful,
expressed in terms of lost time, for all
modes of surface transportation. The
FHWA finds that many operating
agencies use delay metrics to report on
and manage system performance;
however, the definition of delay varies
among agencies. The FHWA
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Considered for the
proposed rule?
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
acknowledges that delay measures do
not capture system performance
attributes in terms of shorter trips or
better access to destinations and modal
options, which may occur at the
expense of greater delay. For example,
transportation priorities in a region may
focus on land use decisionmaking that
concentrates populations, resulting in
reduced speeds but improving access to
destinations and modal options. The
FHWA considered these concerns in the
design of measures based on delay.
Travel Time Index Measure—A travel
time index compares actual travel time
for a road segment (typically during the
peak period) relative to a reference
travel time. The FHWA finds that travel
time indices are widely used to report
on and manage system performance and
traffic congestion. As with delay
metrics, FHWA acknowledges that
travel time indices do not capture
system attributes in terms of shorter
trips or better access to destinations and
mode options, which may occur at the
expense of greater delay. Recognizing
that a free-flow speed-based reference
travel time may not support regional
and local planning policies, FHWA
believes it is appropriate for individual
State DOTs and/or MPOs to establish
reference travel times that support local
priorities for certain types of measures.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The FHWA believes that the use of an
index provides an effective means to
normalize travel times so that the
performance can be evaluated across
different roadway segments and used to
calculate a national performance
measure.
Travel Time-Based Measure—A
measure calculated using a travel timebased metric would report actual travel
times for origin-destination pairs rather
than comparing actual travel time to a
reference travel time. The FHWA
believes that use of travel time by itself
as a metric or measure would be
difficult for the public to understand
without also knowing the associated
origin-destination information. The
FHWA believes that the use of an index
that compares actual travel time to
expected travel time is more meaningful
to the public.
Travel Time or Speed Reliability
Measure—This measure would compare
the longest travel time or slowest speed
that occurs during a specified time
frame to a reference travel time or speed
for a transportation facility. A reliability
measure is an indication of the extra
time a traveler must add to their trip in
order to have a high degree of certainty
that they will arrive at their destination
on time. The FHWA finds that travel
time reliability measures are widely
used to report on and manage system
performance. The FHWA also notes two
important refinements that strengthen
travel time reliability measures: (1)
Some agencies exclude the top 20
percent of longest travel times
throughout the year because these travel
times typically are due to extreme
events that are beyond an agency’s
control and should not be considered in
the assessment of overall system
performance; and (2) The reference
travel time used in a reliability measure
often reflects travel time associated with
typical or average travel speeds rather
than the time associated with free flow
travel speeds.
Level of Service-Based Measure—
Some transportation agencies assess the
performance of their highways by
comparing existing traffic volume to the
capacity for which those highways are
designed in a measure that is typically
referred to as the Level of Service. This
approach assumes that as traffic volume
reaches the capacity of the system,
performance is reduced. However,
23825
FHWA believes that an agency can often
use operations strategies such as ramp
metering or High Occupancy Vehicle
lanes to avoid or reduce performance
impacts as traffic volume approaches
capacity. The FHWA also believes that
data on traffic volume information is not
sufficiently available on all segments of
roadways at all times of the day to use
as the only basis for the development of
national performance measures.
Impact-Based Measures—Some
transportation agencies and planning
organizations use measures to report the
estimated impacts of increased travel
times or reduced travel speeds such as
wasted fuel, the value of lost time, or
commuter stress levels. The FHWA
finds, however, that the information to
support such measures is not directly
measurable, thereby requiring the use of
algorithms that would be difficult to
develop in a reliable manner.
A summary of FHWA’s analysis of the
different approaches for expressing
travel time, travel speed, and/or traffic
volume considered as part of its efforts
to develop measures to assess system
performance and traffic congestion is
provided in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF APPROACHES FOR EXPRESSING TRAVEL TIME, TRAVEL SPEED, AND TRAFFIC
VOLUME
Level of stakeholder
interest
Considered for the
proposed rule?
....................................................................
Time as an Index ......................................
Time ..........................................................
Time Speed Reliability ..............................
Mixed .....................
Low ........................
Mixed .....................
High .......................
Yes.
Yes .........................
No.
Yes .........................
Level of Service ....................................................
Impacts .................................................................
Low ........................
Very Low ................
No.
No.
Approach
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Delay
Travel
Travel
Travel
FHWA Congestion and Reliability
Performance Measure Research and
Analysis
The FHWA has been researching
performance measures for congestion,
mobility, and reliability for over 10
years. The Urban Congestion Report 41
and Freight Performance Measurement
(FPM) 42 have focused on producing
performance measures from a variety of
sources over the years. Initially,
FHWA’s research calculated travel times
from speed data derived from sensors in
or along the roadway, including loop
detectors, side-fired radar detectors,
video detection, etc. The FHWA
research then developed a variety of
measures that could be used for trend
41 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/
ucr/.
42 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_
analysis/perform_meas/#fhwa.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
analysis, such as the Planning Time
Index (95th percentile travel time versus
free flow travel time) that focuses on the
variability (or reliability) of travel day to
day, and hours of congestion (hours of
day where travel on freeways is under
45 mph), among other measures. The
measures were aggregated from roadway
sections up to urbanized area-wide
measure as well as national measures.
Two issues identified through this
research are important to understanding
the ultimate approach FHWA proposes
for the MAP–21 performance measures
related to congestion and system
reliability. First, the advent of readily
available vehicle-based probe travel
time data in recent years has led to a
transformation of traveler information
and performance measure development.
Vehicle-based probe travel time data is
derived from in-vehicle, GPS-based
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Considerations
Use of an agency defined threshold.
Consider non-recurring congestion tied to extreme events.
probes, including track fleet
management devices, navigation units,
and cell phones that report location
information and time. The travel times
are either derived directly from speed
data provided or calculated based on a
probe’s trip progress (deriving speeds
from the amount of time taken to travel
between two locations and the distance
between the two locations). Because
data on the entire NHS is available from
actual measurements tied to a date,
time, and location on specific roadway
segments, congestion performance
measurement can be much more
accurate, widespread, and detailed. This
data also provides the potential to
undertake before/after evaluations of
transportation projects and strategies.
Since the passage of MAP–21, the
FHWA acquired vehicle-based probe
travel time data from a private vendor
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23826
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
for the entire NHS, and acquired the
rights for State DOTs and MPOs to also
use the data. The data set, the NPMRDS,
delivers travel time data, averaged every
5 minutes of every day of the year every
month. Travel times are reported for
freight-only and for all traffic, which
includes all probe data available
(passenger, freight, fleet, taxis, etc.).
The second issue FHWA identified is
that aggregating measures up to a
national level provides important
national trend information but has
limited direct correlation to how money
is being spent on road improvements
that may actually affect changes in the
measure. The FHWA has been
advocating the use of performance
measures at a local level as best practice
in recent years. Operating and planning
agencies can better understand how a
project affects performance on a section
of roadway or how a facility or corridor
operates during peak periods or weather
events using local performance
measures, rather than aggregating
measure up to a regional, State, or
national level.
Applicability of Measures
The FHWA analysis of measures
included applicability of measures to
the transportation network or
geographic area. Section 1203 of MAP–
21 directed FHWA to establish measures
for States to use to assess the
performance of the Interstate System
and the non-Interstate NHS. For
assessing performance of the nonInterstate NHS, FHWA believes it is
important that at least one of the
selected measures relate to the entire
NHS. Since system reliability is
identified as one of the National Goals
(23 U.S.C. 150(b)(4)), FHWA decided it
was appropriate to establish a
reliability-based measure for the entire
NHS. Accordingly, the NHPP
Performance of the System reliability
measure is calculated for the entire
NHS.
Another important component of
System Performance is congestion, and
typically, but not exclusively, the worst
congestion occurs on high-volume roads
in urbanized areas. The FHWA thought
it was important to capture this type of
congestion in a measure so that
urbanized areas would be able to
monitor and address congestion issues.
The Peak Hour Travel Time measure
was developed to provide this
information, limiting the reporting to
the largest urbanized areas (over
1,000,000 in population). In selecting
this measure, FHWA considered the
national goal of congestion reduction,
which asks to achieve a significant
reduction in congestion on the NHS. 23
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
U.S.C. 150(b)(3). The FHWA believes
the Peak Hour Travel Time measure is
consistent with this national goal. The
Peak Hour Travel Time measure also
gives agencies in the affected urbanized
areas the ability to relate their measure
to their NHS roadway operational and
investment policies by allowing them to
set the ‘‘Desired Peak Period Travel
Time’’ on their NHS roadways.
Consistent with the purpose of the
CMAQ program to fund transportation
projects and programs that will
contribute to attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS in areas designated as
nonattainment and maintenance, FHWA
believes that the CMAQ Traffic
Congestion measure should apply to
nonattainment and maintenance areas
and relate to the goals of the CMAQ
Program (to improve air quality and
relieve congestion). To reduce the
burden on some States DOTs and MPOs
and to focus on areas where typically
the worst congestion occurs, like the
System Performance congestion
measure, FHWA chose to limit this
measure to urbanized areas over
1,000,000 in population as well, since
those agencies typically have more
capability and experience in assessing
traffic congestion. In addition, these
areas are the same areas where MPOs
will need to report on the CMAQ
measures as part of a performance plan
under 23 U.S.C. 149(l). Similar to the
System Performance congestion
measure, FHWA also chose a measure
that would be consistent with the
national goal of congestion reduction.
Based on a thorough review of data,
measure definitions, calculation
methods, applicability, and national
goals, FHWA identified three potential
measures to assess system performance
and traffic congestion that deserved
further consideration including:
Percentage of system providing for
reliable travel times; percentage of
system where peak hour travel times
meet expectations; and annual excessive
delay per capita.
The FHWA analyzed these proposed
measures for system performance and
traffic congestion in tandem as part of
this rulemaking so they would provide
(1) a complete national picture of
system reliability; (2) a focus on
urbanized area peak hour congestion;
and (3) a focus on the worst traffic
delays in air quality nonattainment
areas and maintenance areas. In
addition, FHWA ensured that the
proposed measures (and related metrics)
were defined so that their
methodologies could be applicable at
the same segment, corridor, facility, or
other level, resulting in fine grain
performance information suitable for
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
supporting the investment
decisionmaking process at the
statewide, metropolitan, and local
levels. Finally, FHWA focused on using
as much actual, observed data as is
available to develop these measures.
Together, these three measures provide
a comprehensive picture of system
performance, reliability and traffic
congestion nationwide, both on the
entire NHS and with a focus on areas
that typically have the worst congestion.
Assessment of Proposed Measures for
Subparts E and G (System Performance
and Traffic Congestion)
The FHWA used a common
methodology of 12 criteria to assess the
appropriateness of each measure for
national use and the readiness to
implement the performance measure
accurately and reliably.
• (A1) Is the measure focused on
comprehensive performance
outcomes?
• (A2) Has the measure been developed
in partnership with key stakeholders?
• (A3) Can the measure accommodate
changes in the future?
• (A4) Can the measure be used to
support investment decisions, policy
making, and target establishment?
• (A5) Can the measures be used to
analyze performance trends?
• (A6) Is collection, storage, and
reporting of measure data feasible?
• (B1) Timeliness
• (B2) Consistency
• (B3) Completeness
• (B4) Accuracy
• (B5) Accessibility
• (B6) Data Integration
Each performance measure, as used in
current practice, was assessed against
the 12 criteria using the following three
ratings for each criterion.
• Green Rating—Criterion is fully met
for the candidate measure
• Yellow Rating—Criterion is partially
met for the candidate measure and
work is underway to fully meet it the
criterion
• Red Rating—Criterion is not fully met
or no work is underway or planned
that would allow the criterion to be
met
The FHWA used the results of this
assessment to identify gaps that FHWA
could address through this rulemaking
to improve the effectiveness of the
measures in this NPRM. The rulemaking
docket contains a description of the
methodology used for this assessment.
Table 5 below summarizes the results of
the assessment for the proposed
performance management measures for
system performance and traffic
congestion.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23827
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND TRAFFIC
CONGESTION
Percentage of
system providing
for reliable travel
Assessment factor
Percentage of
system where
peak hour travel
times meet
expectations
Annual hours of
excessive delay
per capita
G
Y
G
G
Y
G
Y
Y
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Y
G
G
G
G
G
G
Y
G
G
G
G
G
G
Y
G
G
G
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(A1) 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? ......................................................................................
(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends? ...........................
(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to collect, store, and report data in support
of the measures been considered? .......................................................................
(B1) Timeliness ..........................................................................................................
(B2) Consistency .......................................................................................................
(B3) Completeness ....................................................................................................
(B4) Accuracy ............................................................................................................
(B5) Accessibility .......................................................................................................
(B6) Data Integration .................................................................................................
The factors that were assessed at a
green level for the proposed measures
were considered by FHWA in its choice
of approach for system performance and
traffic congestion measures. The FHWA
also considered the factor assessed at
yellow (B3—completeness) for all three
measures as probe data is available on
most of the NHS, but there are still some
times of day and locations where data
is not consistently available via the
NPMRDS data set that FHWA is
requiring for use for these measures.
The FHWA believes that over time, as
more probe data sources are added to
the data set, that missing travel times
will be minimized.
The FHWA proposal outlined in this
NPRM attempts to address some of the
gaps that exist today for the lower rated
factors so that, when the new
requirements are implemented, the
measures result in an improved
assessment rating, thereby better
supporting national programs. In
particular, FHWA factored the following
considerations in its decision:
• Criterion A1—recognize that the
Traffic Congestion measure (Annual
Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita)
should ideally reflect the movement of
all travelers and the performance of all
modes. As proposed, the measure may
not capture modal options or better
accessibility. The FHWA is seeking
comment on methods that can be used
reliably to achieve this outcome.
• Criterion A2—recognize that a
national measure is not in place for
either system performance or traffic
congestion and no national pilot studies
have been conducted. However, FHWA
and many State DOTs and MPOs have
developed their own system
performance/congestion measures and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
these were considered in developing the
national measures.
The specifics of these proposals are
described in the Section-by-Section
portion of this proposed rule.
B. Selection of Proposed Measures for
Subpart F—Freight Movement on the
Interstate System
This sub-section describes the
FHWA’s analysis of a range of data
types and sources and measurement
methods to support potential freight
movement-related measures and
describes FHWA’s assessment of two
proposed measures including: (1)
Percent of Interstate System mileage
meeting the goal for reliability; and (2)
percent of Interstate System mileage
considered uncongested (by speed). The
FHWA assessed both these proposed
measures in terms of appropriateness as
national measures and readiness for
implementation.
The FHWA selected reliability and
average speed measures because they
offered the best understanding of freight
performance at the national level and
had the widest support from
stakeholders. The FHWA seeks to refine
the use of freight-related measures in
the future and broaden measures and
data sources that can better inform
future policy, programming, and
investment decisions and provide a
multimodal consideration of freight
flow.
Freight Movement Data Types and
Sources Considered by FHWA
The FHWA recognizes that the
efficient movement of freight is
important to the Nation’s economy.
Efficiency is hindered by slow speeds
and unreliable travel times caused by
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
congested highways. For the freight
industry, slow and unreliable travel
results in diminished productivity by
reducing the efficiency of operations,
increasing costs of goods, increasing
fuel costs, reducing drivers’ available
hours for service, and reducing
equipment productivity. Reducing
highway congestion could produce
important benefits for the freight
industry and contribute to our Nation’s
growing economy. Solutions must
address the long-term and short-term
freight needs and depend on
participation from both the public and
private sectors to fully understand
performance and develop strategic
solutions.
Historically, congestion data
collection efforts focused exclusively on
commuting in urbanized areas. To
improve availability of freight data,
FHWA launched the FPM program in
2002. This program collects truck traveltime data on major freight-significant
corridors, intercity pairs along those
corridors, and major U.S. international
land-border crossings. Data are collected
from embedded probe technology in
approximately 600,000 trucks and are
used to provide a range of performance
measures including but not limited to
travel times, speeds, congestion points,
incident analysis, and diversions.
Although FPM itself is not a system
improvement, it is a mechanism for
collecting and analyzing data to assist
national, State, regional, and local
transportation agencies in better
measuring and managing highway
transportation system performance. The
availability of FPM data has the
potential to inform future investment
decisions that produce benefits of
regional and national significance.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23828
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The FPM program complements other
efforts by FHWA to monitor and
measure urban congestion. Combining
FPM data with urban congestion data
such as HPMS data, economic data from
the Freight Analysis Framework, and
other relevant data provides a more
complete picture of surface
transportation system performance and
identifies areas where performance
could be improved. To provide a
comprehensive understanding of freight
performance in concert with passenger
and total traffic congestion and
performance, FHWA procured the
NPMRDS in 2013, which provides travel
times for all traffic, passenger, and
freight with an archive of data beginning
in October 2011. The FPM probe data is
the freight data that is included in the
NPMRDS travel time data. States and
MPOs are currently using this data set
to develop performance measures and
support freight planning and other
transportation plans. This data set
allows a more comprehensive
understanding of congestion for all
types of traffic through the calculation
of speed, reliability, and travel time on
corridors with significant freight
movement. As mentioned above, there
is widespread support among
stakeholders for these types of measures
(e.g., speed, reliability, travel time).
However, FHWA recognizes that a true
picture of freight performance must
reflect the multimultimodal nature of
freight. In addition to efforts to
implement the performance
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150, FHWA
expects to continue work currently
underway with other modes and public
and private freight stakeholders to
develop new data opportunities and
create additional measures to provide a
multimodal and economic assessment of
freight. These efforts would further an
understanding of freight performance
that will support other freight-related
provisions within MAP–21 such as
freight planning. This work, in addition
to FHWA’s current efforts for the FPM
program, will provide a clearer picture
of the total supply chain and goods
movement system so that improvements
can be even more precisely targeted.
Freight Movement Measures Considered
by FHWA
The FHWA focused its evaluation of
measures for 23 U.S.C. 150 for freight
movement on Interstate on its
significant research and leadership in
FPM development through the FPM
program, and stakeholder input. The
FHWA recognizes that freight
performance is best depicted by a series
of measures to provide a comprehensive
picture of freight movement.
Stakeholders discussed multimodal
measures and suites of measures to
show performance in all aspects of
freight movement. As the measures
required for this rulemaking are only for
freight movement on the Interstate
System, FHWA is addressing
stakeholder requests for multimodal and
multiarea measures through other MAP–
21 freight requirements such as freight
planning and the development of a
Freight Conditions and Performance
Report (see MAP–21, Section 1115). An
additional factor in FHWA’s assessment
was the varying practices for FPM
among stakeholders, including State
DOTs and MPOs, resulting in a lack of
national consistency on data and
measurement. After considering the
ongoing research in this area and
stakeholder support for FHWA’s FPM
efforts, FHWA believes that its proposed
use of a nationally consistent data set is
the most consistent, efficient, and
reliable means of understanding
Interstate freight movement at the local,
State, and national levels.
Assessment of Proposed Measures for
Subpart F (Freight Movement)
The FHWA identified two proposed
measures: (1) Percent of Interstate
System mileage meeting the goal for
reliability; and (2) percent of Interstate
System mileage considered uncongested
(by speed). The two measures proposed
by FHWA were evaluated, based on
existing state-of-practice, using the
assessment process described in Section
V.A of this section. Table 6 includes a
summary of this assessment.
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES RELATING TO FREIGHT MOVEMENT
Percent of
interstate system
mileage meeting
goal for reliability
Assessment factor
Percent of
interstate system
mileage
uncongested
(by speed)
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Y
G
G
G
G
G
G
Y
G
G
G
(A1) 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 is used to support investment decisions, policy making and target establishment? .......................................................................................................................................................
(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends? .............................................................
(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to collect, store, and report data in support of the measures
been considered? .....................................................................................................................................
(B1) Timeliness ............................................................................................................................................
(B2) Consistency .........................................................................................................................................
(B3) Completeness ......................................................................................................................................
(B4) Accuracy ..............................................................................................................................................
(B5) Accessibility .........................................................................................................................................
(B6) Data Integration ...................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Legend: G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.
The measures proposed by FHWA
were considered against the criteria
presented in Table 6. For all of the
assessment factors except completeness,
FHWA ranked these measures as
‘‘green.’’ The FHWA considered the
measures against all of the criteria and
weighed public and private stakeholder
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
input along with FHWA’s experience in
applying the measures. These measures
were determined to be the two measures
that most appropriately met all of the
assessment factors and provide a
comprehensive assessment of
performance for freight so that public
and private decisionmakers can identify
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
policy and operational improvements
for goods movement. The FHWA
considered the measures to be ‘‘yellow’’
for completeness only because they are
proposed to rely on data from the
NPMRDS, which has limited missing
data that could impact the ability to
conduct a complete assessment of
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23829
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
freight movement on the Interstate.
While a robust data set, the NPMRDS
does exhibit limitations, especially with
missing travel time data when no probe
passes a location in a 5-minute period
(referred to as 5-minute bins). For the
freight data, the NPMRDS uses a sample
of approximately 600,000 trucks. The
probes that are used to derive travel
times in the NPMRDS generally provide
national coverage. However, there are
some areas of the Nation where there are
fewer trucks or no truck activity
reported. When this occurs, these bins
would not be reported in the NPMRDS,
and are missing from the dataset. The
FHWA’s internal assessment has
demonstrated that, even with the
missing data, the measures could still be
calculated because the measures are
based on annual averages. There are not
enough missing 5 minute bins to make
calculating the measure impossible. The
FHWA recognizes the need to improve
the completeness of the data and
continues to work to improve this data
set and include more trucks. It is
expected that the truck sample will
grow exponentially in coming years and
over time the addition of more probe
sources will reduce missing travel
times.
C. Selection of Proposed Measures for
Subpart H—On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
The following section includes an
overview of the factors FHWA
considered in the selection of a
proposed measure for the assessment of
on-road mobile source emissions as
required to administer the CMAQ
program under 23 U.S.C. 149. (The
previous section discusses proposed
measures for Traffic Congestion to carry
out the CMAQ program.) The FHWA
wants the measure established through
this rulemaking to:
• Meet CMAQ program performance
requirements in 23 U.S.C. 149 and 150.
• Be mindful of existing emissions
reduction reporting practices and data
sets, thereby minimizing any additional
burden on State DOTs and MPOs.
• Apply to CMAQ-funded projects
instead of focusing on one project type
(e.g., highways or transit).
• Apply to CMAQ-funded projects
only in areas designated as
nonattainment and maintenance for
pollutants applicable to the CMAQ
program (ozone (O3), carbon monoxide
(CO), and particulate matter (PM))
versus all areas.
The FHWA received viewpoints on
suggested measures as discussed above
in Section III, Discussion of Stakeholder
Engagement and Outreach. In addition,
FHWA considered measures in use
today to report on-road mobile source
emissions reduction estimates. After
consideration, FHWA identified four
possible measures for preliminary
consideration:
(1) Emission Reductions by
Pollutant—A measure of the estimated
emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded
projects within a nonattainment or
maintenance area. The emissions
reductions would be calculated by
pollutant and their applicable
precursors.
(2) Estimated Emission Reductions of
CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative to
Total Emission Reductions of the
Nonattainment or Maintenance Area—
A measure that expresses the emissions
reduced by CMAQ projects as a
percentage of total emission reductions.
Total emission reductions are calculated
by taking the difference between the
estimated emissions of all transportation
projects and the total allowable
emissions (i.e., emissions budget)
within the nonattainment or
maintenance area.
(3) Estimated Emissions Reduction of
CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative to
Total Emissions of the Nonattainment
or Maintenance Area—A measure that
expresses the emissions reduced by
CMAQ-funded projects as a percentage
of total emissions in the nonattainment
or maintenance area. Total emissions
would be obtained from the regional
emissions estimates prepared for the
conformity determination for the
nonattainment or maintenance area.
(4) Cost Effectiveness of CMAQ
Projects—A measure that compares the
total amount of CMAQ funds spent in
an area to estimated emissions reduced
by those CMAQ projects.
Assessment of Potential Measures for
Subpart H
The FHWA assessed the four potential
on-road mobile source emission
measures based on state-of-practice
among States and MPOs and using the
12 criteria described in Section V.A.
Table 7 below summarizes the results of
this assessment.
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
Emission
reductions by
pollutant
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Assessment factor
Estimated
emission
reductions of
CMAQ-funded
projects relative to
total emission
reductions of
the area
Estimated
emission
reductions of
CMAQ-funded
projects relative to
total emissions of
area
Cost effectiveness
of CMAQ projects
G
G
G
G
G
G
R
G
R
G
R
G
G
Y
Y
G
G
G
G
G
G
Y
Y
Y
G
G
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
G
R
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
G
R
Y
Y
R
R
R
R
R
(A1) 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? ..................
(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance
trends? .................................................................................
(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to collect, store, and
report data in support of the measures been considered?
(B1) Timeliness ........................................................................
(B2) Consistency .....................................................................
(B3) Completeness ..................................................................
(B4) Accuracy ..........................................................................
(B5) Accessibility .....................................................................
(B6) Data Integration ...............................................................
Legend: G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23830
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Based on the assessment summarized
above and the additional principles
described in this section, FHWA
concluded that the last three measures
were not suitable because they did not
provide useful information for
establishing targets, were not developed
with key stakeholders, or in the case of
cost effectiveness, data was not readily
available. The measure that best fits the
criteria established by FHWA was
emissions reduction by pollutant. With
respect to this measure, FHWA
considered the following:
• Criterion B1—Measure recognizes
that emissions are estimated, not
measured, based on the expected benefit
from building the project. Collecting
emissions data on a project-by-project
basis through vehicle probing or another
means would be cost prohibitive and
would take years to collect useable data.
• Criteria B2 and B3—Measure
recognizes that no consistent method is
being used across the country to
estimate CMAQ project emission
reductions and that although
quantitative emissions analyses of air
quality impacts is expected for almost
all project types, qualitative assessments
are acceptable when it is not possible to
accurately quantify emissions
reductions (i.e., public education,
marketing and other outreach efforts).
The FHWA is conducting a number of
research studies to develop tools to
assist with consistency and
completeness of emissions estimates, for
those project types where it is possible
to quantify emissions, but these tools
will take time for FHWA to develop.
• Criterion B6—While the CMAQ
Public Access System does include
estimated emissions reductions by
pollutant by project for each MPO and
State that receives CMAQ funds, this
database is not integrated with
performance-related data such as a
spatial component. Work is underway to
improve and increase the functionalities
of the database to support the
performance planning activities.
The FHWA is proposing this
approach to define the on-road mobile
source emissions measure in a manner
that is consistent with and reflects the
various methods used today by State
DOTs and MPOs to calculate on-road
mobile source emissions and is
consistent with the information received
from stakeholders. The specifics of this
proposal are described in the Sectionby-Section portion of this proposed rule.
D. Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Measure
The FHWA is seeking comment on
whether and how to establish a CO2
emissions measure in the final rule. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
FHWA received input through
stakeholder listening sessions and
various letters (available in the docket)
suggesting that DOT add a GHG
emissions measure because GHGs are
correlated with fuel use and air toxins.
One group of commenters specifically
asked for a carbon emissions measure
for mobile sources. However, it is clear
that reducing CO2 emissions is critical
and timely. On-road sources account for
over 80 percent of U.S. transportation
sector GHGs. In an historic accord in
Paris, the U.S. and over 190 other
countries agreed to reduce GHG
emissions, with the goal of limiting
global temperature rise to less than 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels by 2050.
According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human
activity is changing the earth’s climate
by causing the buildup of heat-trapping
greenhouse gas emissions through the
burning of fossil fuels and other human
processes.43 Transportation sources
globally have been a rapidly increasing
source of GHGs. Since 1970, GHGs
produced by the transportation sector
have more than doubled, increasing at a
faster rate than any other end-use sector.
The GHGs from total global on-road
sources have more than tripled,
accounting these sources account for
more than 80 percent of the increase in
total global transportation GHG
emissions.44 In the U.S., GHG emissions
from on-road sources represent
approximately 23 percent of economywide GHGs, but have accounted for
more than two-thirds of the net increase
in total U.S. GHGs since 1990,45 during
which time VMT also increased by more
than 30 percent.46
A well-established scientific record
has linked increasing GHG
concentrations with a range of climatic
effects, including increased global
43 The IPCC Document: IPCC, 2014: Summary for
Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
https://mitigation2014.org/report/summary-forpolicy-makers.
44 Sims, et al. 2014: Transport: In Climate Change
2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. https://ipcc.ch/
pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_
full.pdf. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. p. 605. https://ipcc.ch/
pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_
chapter8.pdf.
45 This is the first year of official U.S. data.
46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks, 1990–2015. Washington, DC. Tables 2–1 and
2–13. Federal Highway Administration, 2013 Status
of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions & Performance. Washington, DC. Exhibit
1–3. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/
Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016Main-Text.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
temperatures that have the potential to
result in dangerous and potentially
irreversible changes in climate and
weather. In December 2015, the
Conference of Parties nations recognized
the need for deep reductions in global
emissions to hold the increase in global
average temperature to well below 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels, and are
pursuing efforts to limit temperature
increases to 1.5 °C. To that end, the
accord calls on developed countries to
take a leadership role in identifying
economy-wide absolute emissions
reduction targets and implementing
mitigation programs. Also, as part of a
2014 bilateral agreement with China, the
U.S. pledged to reduce GHG emissions
to 26–28 percent below 2005 levels by
2025, with this emissions reduction
pathway intended to support economywide reductions of 80 percent or more
by 2050.
The FHWA recognizes that achieving
U.S. climate goals will likely require
significant GHG reductions from onroad transportation sources. To support
the consideration of GHG emissions in
transportation planning and
decisionmaking, FHWA has developed a
variety of resources to quantify on-road
GHG emissions, evaluate GHG reduction
strategies, and integrate climate analysis
into the transportation planning
process. The FHWA already encourages
transportation agencies to consider GHG
emissions as part of their performancebased decisionmaking, and has
developed a handbook to assist State
DOTs and MPOs interested in
addressing GHG emissions through
performance-based planning and
programming.47 The FHWA has
developed tools to help State and local
transportation agencies address GHG
emissions associated with their systems.
These include the Energy and Emissions
Reduction Policy Analysis Tool
(EERPAT),48 a model that evaluates the
impacts of CO2 reduction policies for
surface transportation, and the
Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE),49
a tool that specifically evaluates CO2
associated with the construction and
maintenance of transportation
infrastructure. The FHWA is also
currently conducting a number of pilots
47 A Performance-Based Approach to Addressing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Transportation
Planning, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment/climate_change/mitigation/
publications_and_tools/ghg_planning/ghg_
planning.pdf.
48 The Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy
Analysis Tool (EERPAT), available at https://
www.planning.dot.gov/FHWA_tool/.
49 The Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE),
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
climate_change/mitigation/publications_and_tools/
carbon_estimator/.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
to analyze the potential GHG emission
reductions associated with various
transportation-related mitigation
strategies.50 Even with these efforts,
FHWA recognizes that more will be
needed to meet the U.S. climate goals.
The FHWA is considering how GHG
emissions could be estimated and used
to inform planning and programming
decisions to reduce long term emissions.
If FHWA were to establish a measure,
we believe that, in the context of this
rulemaking, GHG emissions would be
best measured as the total annual tons
of CO2 from all on-road mobile sources.
The FHWA is seeking comment on the
potential establishment and
effectiveness of a measure as a planning,
programming, and reporting tool, and
how we could address the following
considerations in the design of a
measure:
• Should the measure address all onroad mobile sources or should it focus
only on a particular vehicle type (e.g.,
light-duty vehicles)?
• Should the measure be normalized
by changes in population, economic
activity, or other factors (e.g., per capita
or per unit of gross state product)?
• Should the measure be limited to
emissions coming from the tailpipe, or
should it consider emissions generated
upstream in the life cycle of the vehicle
operations (e.g., emissions from the
extraction/refining of petroleum
products and the emissions from power
plants to provide power for electric
vehicles)?
• Should the measure include nonroad sources, such as construction and
maintenance activities associated with
Title 23 projects?
• Should CO2 emissions performance
be estimated based on gasoline and
diesel fuel sales, system use (vehicle
miles traveled), or other surrogates?
• Due to the nature of CO2 emissions
(e.g., geographic scope and cumulative
effects) and their relationship to climate
change effects across all parts of the
country, should the measure apply to all
States and MPOs? Is there any criteria
that would limit the applicability to
only a portion of the States or MPOs?
• Would a performance measure on
CO2 emissions help to improve
transparency and to realign incentives
such that State DOTs and MPOs are
better positioned to meet national
climate change goals?
• The target establishment framework
proposed in this rulemaking requires
that States and MPOs would establish 2
50 FHWA’s Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis
Demonstration projects are described at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/
mitigation/ongoing_and_current_research/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
and 4 year targets that lead to longer
term performance expectations
documented in longer range plans. Is
this framework appropriate for a CO2
emissions measure? If not, what would
be a more appropriate framework?
• Should short term targets be a
reflection of improvements from a
baseline (e.g., percent reduction in CO2
emissions) or an absolute value?
• What data sources and tools are
readily available or are needed to track
and report CO2 emissions from on-road
sources?
• What tools are needed to help
transportation agencies project future
emissions and establish targets for a CO2
emission measure?
• How long would it take for
transportation agencies to implement
such a measure?
• Additionally, the FHWA requests
data about the potential agency
implementation costs and public
benefits associated with establishing a
CO2 emissions measure.
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the
General Information and Proposed
Performance Measures Sections
This section discusses how the
proposed regulations address MAP–21’s
charge to establish performance
measures for State DOTs and MPOs to
use to assess: The performance of the
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS for the purpose of carrying out the
NHPP; freight movement on the
Interstate System; and traffic congestion
and on-road mobile source emissions for
the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
program. Subpart A discusses common
aspects of the proposed rulemaking
related to definitions, reporting,
significant progress determination, and
target establishment. Discussion of the
performance measures is organized into
four subparts covering three
performance areas, including: Subpart
E, which discusses proposed measures
to assess performance of the NHS;
Subpart F, which discusses the
proposed measure to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System; and
Subparts G and H, which discuss the
proposed CMAQ measures to assess
traffic congestion and on-road mobile
source emissions, respectively.
Subparts E, F, G, and H of the
proposed regulations provide the
requirements for the system
performance, traffic congestion, freight
movement, and on-road mobile source
emissions measures, including any
required methodologies for data
collection, data requirements, and
processes for calculating the measures.
The Section-by-Section discussion also
addresses procedural discrepancies in
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23831
data collection and reporting, and
attempts to align them using the latest
research and state-of-the-practice
experience to provide consistent
national performance measures.
A. Common Issues Across Subparts E, F,
and G
The FHWA established and followed
certain standards in the development of
the requirements proposed in Subparts
E, F, and G. For example, for the
proposed rules associated with
assessing the performance of the NHS,
freight movement on the Interstate, and
traffic congestion, FHWA attempted to
use a consistent framework and
structure, to the extent possible, because
the performance measures associated
with these subparts are largely based on
vehicle travel times and speeds. The
following sub-sections summarize the
overarching framework and guiding
principles used across these subparts.
Information related to the development
of the requirements proposed in Subpart
H is discussed separately.
Measures That Focus on Outcomes for
Assessing the Performance of the NHS,
Freight Movement on the Interstate, and
Traffic Congestion
Transportation performance outcomes
can be impacted through the use of a
wide range of strategies that support the
transportation priorities and policies of
local areas. In its decisionmaking to
develop proposed measures, FHWA was
careful to avoid any measures that
would impact the ability of a State DOT
or MPO to make decisions that work for
the local area. For this reason, FHWA
focused only on measures that track
transportation performance where
outcomes could tell a national story.
The proposed measures in Subparts E,
F, and G of this rulemaking focus
primarily on the consistency and
efficiency of travel times on our
Nation’s highways. Improvements to
this outcome could be the result of a
wide range of strategies such as those
that would improve the operations of
highway facilities and those that would
decrease the demand on highway
facilities by providing alternative
transportation choices. The FHWA
believes that the selection of these
strategies is a local decision and should
not be influenced directly by the
measure itself. For this reason, FHWA
elected not to propose measures that
would directly measure the
implementation of strategies to improve
system operations (i.e., percent modal
use, or number of managed lanes).
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23832
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Measures That Use Travel Time Data for
Assessing the Performance of the NHS,
Freight Movement on the Interstate, and
Traffic Congestion
This rulemaking’s proposals for
subparts E, F, and G (performance of the
NHS, freight movement on the
Interstate, and traffic congestion-related
measures) are based on travel times or
travel speeds of highway users. Travel
times and speeds are being proposed as
the basis for these measures as FHWA
feels that this information accurately
reflects highway operational
performance and that the data can be
captured across the full NHS in an
accessible national data source in a
timely and reliable manner. The FHWA
is proposing the use of the new
NPMRDS as the data source to calculate
the metrics for the seven travel time/
speed based measures to ensure
consistency and coverage at a national
level. This data set provides travel times
representative of all traffic (freight and
passenger vehicles) traveling on the
NHS and captures this information
every 5 minutes throughout every day of
the year. The FHWA expects to continue
to provide this data set to State DOTs
and MPOs as long as there is a need at
a national level for this information. The
proposed regulations allow State DOTs
to use alternative data sources provided
the data set is considered at least
equivalent in quality, coverage, and
timeliness to the NPMRDS and is
approved by FHWA. States DOTs and
MPOs have the option to relate the
travel time data provided in the
NPMRDS to their relevant location
referencing system (typically used for
transportation planning).
As proposed in section 490.103,
States and MPOs shall cooperatively
develop and share information related
to transportation systems performance
data. The transportation systems
performance data would include the
travel time data set, the selected
reporting segments, and the desired
peak period travel time required for use
under subparts E, F, and G.
When the State DOT selects the travel
time data set, it must coordinate with
the MPOs in the State that are subject
to creating the metrics and measures in
subparts E, F, and G. When the State
selects the reporting segments and the
Desired Peak Period Travel Time for a
particular reporting segment, State
DOTs must coordinate with the
applicable MPOs that contain the
reporting segment within their
metropolitan planning area boundary.
States and MPOs must use the same
data (the travel time data set, the
reporting segments, and the desired
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
peak period travel time for a reporting
segment) for the purposes of calculating
the metrics and measures.
Dealing With Missing Data When
Assessing the Performance of the NHS,
Freight Movement on the Interstate, and
Traffic Congestion
Travel times and speeds of highway
users may be captured from a variety of
sources such as mobile phones, vehicle
transponders, portable navigation
devices, roadway sensors, and cameras.
It is possible that during the day, during
specific 5-minute intervals, travel time
or speed data cannot be captured. Fiveminute bins without data would not be
reported in the NPMRDS, and would
therefore be considered missing. This
can occur due to one of the following
reasons:
• Reason 1—No users traveled on the
roadway during the 5-minute interval,
or
• Reason 2—Travel occurred on the
roadway but no sources of data were
recognized (i.e., mobile phones, vehicle
transponders, portable navigation
devices), or
• Reason 3—Equipment failure (e.g.,
sensor malfunction, communication
system failure).
The FHWA believes that, although
missing data is possible due to Reason
2 listed above, the likelihood of this
condition occurring will decrease over
time as data capture technologies
advance and as a greater percentage of
highway users carry equipment that
allows them to become viable travel
time data sources. The FHWA also
believes that it is valid to assume that
travel occurring under the conditions
that would result in missing data for
Reason 1 would be consistent with free
flow travel speeds. Lastly, for Reason 3,
FHWA realizes that there are times
when equipment used to capture data
may fail because of usage, damage, or
other causes. The FHWA believes this
will be a more infrequent cause of
missing information than Reason 1. For
these reasons, FHWA is proposing in
this rulemaking that missing travel time
data be assumed to be occurring due to
Reason 1 for purposes of the reliability
measures (both freight and system
performance) on the Interstate and,
consequently, assumes travel times that
are consistent with posted speed limits
when data is missing.
The FHWA found, after analysis of
missing data in the NPMRDS (a whitepaper on missing data/outliers’ impact
on proposed measures is included in the
docket), that there was currently
sufficient data for the Interstate so States
and MPOs could establish reasonable
targets. However, the analysis also
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demonstrated that at the current time
there is enough missing data for the
non-Interstate NHS that it could impact
the ability of States and MPOs to
establish targets. Accordingly, FHWA is
proposing that the non-Interstate
reliability measures would be phased in,
giving the States and MPOs an
opportunity to understand the impact of
missing data on target establishment
and time for the NPMRDS to become
more complete.
Regarding the peak hour travel time
measures, which include both the
Interstate and non-Interstate NHS, the
measures rely on hourly average travel
times. Missing data does not have the
same impact on target establishment for
the peak hour travel time measures as it
does for the reliability measures. So,
FHWA proposes no replacement of
missing data for either of the peak hour
measures. However, in its analysis of
the data, FHWA noted that outliers
could have an effect on these measures,
so FHWA is proposing that States and
MPOs remove extreme outliers (i.e.,
those travel times at speeds less than 2
mph and over 100 mph) from the data
set before calculating the peak hour
measures. These outliers are further
discussed in a white-paper on missing
data/outliers’ impact on proposed
measures, which is included in the
docket.
Missing data potentially could have
an impact on target establishment for
the traffic congestion measure (Annual
Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita).
Because this is a delay measure that
sums all the delay identified on
segments, missing data could mean
missing some delay in calculating the
measure. This could make it difficult for
States and MPOs to achieve targets due
to more complete data may be available
in the future. The FHWA is proposing
that this measure would be phased in,
to allow States and MPOs time to
understand the impact of missing data
on establishing targets, and for the
NPMRDS to become more complete.
As mentioned, a white-paper on
missing data/outliers’ impact on
proposed measures is included in the
docket. This paper includes information
on options such as applying a path-type
processing that uses the actual
observations of the vehicles on segments
adjacent to those segments with missing
data and that traversed the segment with
missing data to fill in the missing travel
times, and the impacts of trimming the
data at 2 and 100 mph. The FHWA is
seeking comment on this process and
other processes that FHWA should
consider to improve missing data and
outlier impacts.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Phasing in Target Establishment
Requirements for Less Mature Measures
The FHWA is proposing a phased-in
approach to the establishment of targets
for both the non-Interstate NHS
reliability measure and the traffic
congestion (excessive delay) measure.
The phased-in approach would provide
2 years for data coverage on nonInterstate NHS roadways to be more
complete and for States and MPOs to
understand the impacts of missing data
on establishing targets. The
completeness of travel time data in the
NPMRDS is greater for the Interstate as
compared to other NHS roadways. The
FHWA believes that the completeness of
data in the NPMRDS will improve over
time as sources become more prevalent
(missing data is discussed in a white
paper provided on the docket). The
FHWA also believes that State DOTs
have more experience in collecting and
reporting reliability and congestion
performance on the Interstate as
compared to other NHS roadways and,
as a result, are more readily capable to
establish targets for the Interstate
System. However, missing data for the
non-Interstate NHS may lead to
uncertainty for State DOTs and MPOs as
they establish targets. Giving time to
State DOTs and MPOs to establish
targets for the non-Interstate NHS may
help them learn how to manage that
uncertainty. For these reasons, FHWA
believes that a phased approach to target
establishment is appropriate for those
measures that are derived from data on
the non-Interstate NHS.
Travel Time Reliability for Assessing
the Performance of the NHS and Freight
Movement on the Interstate
The FHWA heard consistently from
stakeholders that managing the travel
time reliability of the highway network
is important and should be considered
as part of this rulemaking. For this
reason, as part of this rulemaking
FHWA is proposing the establishment of
travel time reliability measures. In
general, the proposed reliability
measures address: (1) The reliability of
the entire NHS for all travelers; and (2)
the reliability of the Interstate System
for longer haul freight movements.
Reliability focuses on variability in
travel times, and the travel time
measures in this rulemaking focus on
identifying portions of the NHS and
Interstate (for freight) that have high
levels of unreliable travel. An example
of unreliable travel is a trip that takes 30
minutes on a typical day but could take
over 45 minutes on a random day. This
extra trip time might be due to a road
or lane closure, a traffic accident, or bad
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
weather. The FHWA intends that the
measure for reliability of the NHS for all
travelers would be used to identify the
areas of the transportation network
where there are the greatest impacts on
travel when non-recurring incidents
occur. Non-recurring incidents include
temporary disruptions, such as
incidents ranging from a flat tire to an
overturned hazardous material truck,
work zones, weather, and special
events. In contrast, the proposed
measure for freight travel time reliability
is based only on freight travel and
considers the longest travel times
experienced as compared to travel times
more likely during normal travel time
conditions throughout all hours of the
day. The index provided by this
reliability measure is an important piece
of information for shippers and
suppliers so they can plan for a higher
likelihood of on-time arrivals of
deliveries. These reliability measures
are discussed in more detail in the
section-by-section portion of this
NPRM.
Travel Time Delay for Assessing Freight
Movement on the Interstate and Traffic
Congestion
The FHWA is proposing two
measures to assess traffic congestion: (1)
One measure to represent congestion
impacting freight movement, which is
proposed in Subpart F; and (2) One
measure to represent overall traffic
congestion, which is proposed in
Subpart G. Although both proposed
measures use delay as the basis for
determining congestion, the two differ
in design and intended purpose.
The first proposed congestion
measure related to freight movement is
focused on delay and is intended to be
used to assess delay that could occur on
the Interstate System. This proposed
delay measure represents the percentage
of the Interstate System that is
uncongested as defined by a speed
threshold of 50 mph. The FHWA aimed
to understand the point of inflection to
consider speeds and viewed 50 mph as
appropriate for this measure. This is due
in part because trucks often have speed
governors installed on them so that they
cannot travel much faster than 55 mph.
Additionally, freight stakeholders
commented that 50 mph or greater is
where they would like to be in terms of
average speed. The FHWA is seeking
comment on this threshold.
The second proposed measure, related
to traffic congestion and focused on
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per
Capita, is intended to be used to assess
delays that FHWA believes would be
considered excessive by users of the
NHS roadways in large urbanized areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23833
This proposed delay measure is an
indication of the additional time spent
by all users of the system (quantified by
the total estimated vehicles using the
system) when traveling at speeds
considerably lower than typical speed
limits. In addition, this measure is
proposed to be only applicable to the
largest urbanized areas in the country:
The portion of those that exceed a
population of 1 million.
Reliable Performance for the NHS and
Freight Movement on the Interstate
Three of the eight measures proposed
in this rulemaking focus on measuring
reliable performance: (1) Section
490.507(a)(1) Percent of the Interstate
System providing for reliable travel
times, (2) Section 490.507(a)(2) Percent
of the non-Interstate NHS providing for
reliable travel times, and (3) Section
490.607(a) Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage providing reliable truck
travel times. The discussions provided
in this section provide an explanation of
how ‘‘reliable’’ performance is defined,
understanding that the meaning of this
term can be very subjective, especially
when discussing outcomes that are
derived from travel time and speed data.
Each of the measures that focus on
‘‘reliable’’ performance includes a
clearly defined calculation to remove
any subjectivity in the meaning of the
term. As discussed above, FHWA is
proposing measures that, although they
include similar methods of calculation,
would be used to assess different
aspects of highway performance. In
general, reliable performance for the five
proposed measures can be grouped as
follows:
• Subpart E—Travel time reliability
as being reliable for highway users;
• Subpart F—Truck travel time
reliability as being reliable for shippers
and suppliers.
Additional discussion is provided in
each subpart to explain the method used
to identify the percentage of the
transportation network that would be
considered ‘‘reliable’’ to these different
users and stakeholders.
Impact of Traffic Volumes on Travel
Time Derived Measures
The measures being proposed in this
rulemaking that are derived from travel
times reflect: System reliability, peak
hour travel times, truck congestion, and
excessive delay. With the exception of
excessive delay, FHWA did not factor
the volume of traffic in the calculations
for these proposed measures.
Consequently, these measures do not
directly capture the weight of traffic
volumes in the results. Rather, the
measures are calculated based on the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23834
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
length of roadway segments. Table 8
below provides a very simple example
to illustrate the impact of traffic volume
on the measure calculation:
TABLE 8—AN EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC VOLUME ON THE MEASURE CALCULATION
Annual traffic
volume
(thousands of
vehicles)
Road segment length
(direction-miles)
Vehicle miles
traveled
(thousands)
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
2,700
73,000
5,000
1,700
50,000
18,000
75,000
Yes .......................................
No ........................................
Yes .......................................
No ........................................
Yes .......................................
Yes .......................................
Yes .......................................
5
0
3
0
2
2
1
13,500
0
15,000
0
100,000
36,000
75,000
13,500
73,000
15,000
10,200
0
36,000
75,000
Total = 20 ...............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
5
1
3
6
2
2
1
Vehicle miles
reliable
(thousands)
Length reliable
(direction-miles)
Reliable?
............................
..............................................
Total = 13
Total = 239,500
Total = 322,700
In this simplified example using a
mileage based approach 13 directionmiles, or 65.0 percent (13/20), of the
network would be considered
‘‘reliable,’’ and using a volume weighted
approach 239,500 VMT, or 74.2 percent
(239,500/322,700), of the VMT would
have been ‘‘reliable.’’ This example
illustrates the differences in these two
approaches.
Except for the excessive delay
measure, FHWA elected to use a
mileage based approach and not to
weigh the measures by volume due to
the absence of data regarding actual
traffic volumes particularly for the level
of roadway coverage and granularity
needed (entire NHS and 5-minute
temporal granularity). The system
reliability, peak hour travel times, and
truck congestion measures are intended
to evaluate system performance. This
objective can be achieved by analyzing
performance on roadway segments and
then indicating, via roadway segment
length, whether or not a segment is
performing to a satisfactory level (based
on thresholds defined in this rule). If
actual, observed volumes were available
at these roadway segment levels every 5
minutes as well, an optional approach
would be to identify the amount of VMT
that met the measure thresholds, as
demonstrated in Table 8. This would
require actual volume counts every 5
minutes for every NHS road segment,
data which do not currently exist. The
FHWA believes it would be
inappropriate to introduce estimated
data for these measures, which are
otherwise focused on actual data. As a
result, FHWA is proposing the use of
roadway segment length as the means
for reporting the metrics and measures.
In addition, FHWA believes
performance expressed as the percent of
the system mileage is more easily
understood by the public as compared
to measures that would be expressed as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
the percentage of vehicle miles traveled.
The FHWA encourages State DOTs and
MPOs to consider strategies that would
provide the greatest impact to
improving the performance of overall
traffic volumes by focusing on roadway
segments that carry higher volumes of
traffic.
The Total Excessive Delay measure,
on the other hand, needs to be weighted
by something to be meaningful, as it is
basically a sum of all the excessive
travel times on the NHS in an urban
area. If excessive delay during a 5
minute period (say 5 seconds) were
simply totaled for every 5 minute period
and roadway segment, then the
excessive delay travel time on a
roadway segment with one car would be
equivalent to a roadway segment with
110 cars. Such an analysis would not
capture the scope of the delay (how
many vehicles are actually experiencing
that 5 second excessive travel time).
Hourly volumes (of vehicles) are a
typical means of weighting delay
measures. Therefore, for the Total
Excessive Delay measure, FHWA
requires development of hourly volumes
based on actual vehicle counts or
estimated from AADT (an estimated
number from limited vehicle count
data). State DOTs and MPOs can
develop hourly volume estimates with
AADT information provided to HPMS
every year for their NHS roadways. In
this case, using the best-available data,
even if it is estimated, is preferable than
not using such data, because DOTs and
MPOs would have difficulty setting
targets for this measure without
weighting it by the number of vehicles
experiencing the delay.
The FHWA is seeking comments on
this approach and encourages comments
suggesting alternative methods that may
more effectively capture the impact of
performance changes on differing levels
of system use.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Focus on Large Urbanized Areas for
Assessing the Performance of the NHS
and Traffic Congestion
In addition to travel time reliability,
FHWA is proposing travel time or speed
based measures to assess and manage
the worst areas of delay or congestion in
large urbanized areas. The FHWA felt
that this type of measure was most
applicable to urbanized areas where
populations are greater than 1 million,
as these areas are where delay is most
likely to occur, and where State DOTs
and MPOs likely have a greater level of
capability, experience, and need to
manage the traffic operations. As
proposed, three of the seven travel time
or speed based measures are limited to
these large urbanized areas. They are:
(1) Section 490.507(b)(1) Percent of the
Interstate System where peak hour
travel times meet expectations, (2)
section 490.507(b)(2) Percent of the nonInterstate NHS where peak hour travel
times meet expectations, and (3) section
490.707 Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay Per Capita. The peak hour travel
time measures capture congestion only
during peak periods of use (commuterelated congestion) and the annual
hours of excessive delay per capita
captures congestion throughout the day
(overall delay).
The FHWA is proposing that only
urbanized areas over 1 million in
population would be subject to these
measures because of the additional
performance-reporting requirements
that these areas, which are also
nonattainment or maintenance areas,
have to complete for the CMAQ-related
measures (23 U.S.C. 149(l)) including
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay per
Capita. By requiring MPOs in these
areas to do additional CMAQ
performance reporting, Congress placed
a special emphasis on these larger
urbanized areas. The FHWA considered
this emphasis when it evaluated
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
whether all areas or only a smaller
subset of areas within a State should be
subject to the traffic congestion
measure.
In FHWA’s experience, areas over 1
million in population are generally
more complex from a transportation
perspective. Those areas have more
population, resulting in more trips.
These areas also tend to have a variety
of transportation options available,
including highways, airports,
commercial rail. In more concentrated
urban environments, the areas may also
be more constrained in terms of where
any new facilities to accommodate
demand can be located. There also may
be higher costs for right-of-way
acquisition. For all these reasons,
FHWA’s experience is that
transportation planning in these larger
urban areas is generally more complex
than in areas less than 1 million in
population, resulting in a greater need
to manage the transportation system
and, specifically, traffic operations. In
addition, these larger areas do receive
more Surface Transportation Program
suballocated funding than smaller areas
(see 23 U.S.C. 133(d)). For all these
reasons, FHWA believe it is important
that these areas look more closely peak
hour travel times and excessive delay as
they are managing traffic operations.
The FHWA also considered whether
the measure should apply: To another
subset of areas within the State, such as
areas where MPOs serve a TMA 51 as
these areas may have more experience
with the congestion management
process provided for in 23 U.S.C. 134(k);
to all urbanized areas within the State;
or to the entire State. Because of the
additional burden involved in
measuring peak hour and traffic
congestion, FHWA is proposing that
only urbanized areas where populations
are greater than 1 million in population
would be subject to these measures. The
FHWA is requesting comment on:
Whether a population threshold should
be used for determining the measure
applicability; and if so then whether 1
million is the appropriate threshold, or
whether another threshold (e.g.,
population over 200,000) would be
more appropriate.
Within the United States there are 42
urbanized areas that have populations
greater than 1 million based on the most
recent U.S. Census (2010). These 42
areas are included within or intersect
with 35 State and 67 metropolitan
51 A transportation management area (TMA) is
defined in Federal statute (23 U.S.C. 134(k)) as an
urbanized area having a population of over 200,000,
or otherwise designated by the Governor and the
MPO and officially designated by the FHWA and
FTA Administrators.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
planning area boundaries. The FHWA is
proposing that for these measures
(traffic congestion measure and the peak
hour travel time measures for system
performance), one single target be
established for the roadways within the
urbanized area, including those areas
that intersect with multiple State and
metropolitan planning area boundaries.
This single target would need to be
agreed upon and shared by all of the
entities in the urbanized area. For
example, one target would be
established for the Philadelphia
urbanized area that would be shared by
the four States and four MPOs that
collectively make transportation
investment decisions for the area. The
FHWA recognizes that for these large
areas, performance is not constrained by
political boundaries and that strategies
to address performance should be
addressed regionally and across
political boundaries. For these
measures, strategies taken in one
political jurisdiction can have direct
and indirect impacts when measuring
performance in another proximate
political jurisdiction. The FHWA felt
that this approach would increase the
potential for coordination across
jurisdictions to manage the overall
performance of the region.
Starting With Highways and Expanding
to Other Surface Transportation Modes
for Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA heard from many
stakeholders that the traffic congestion
measure should consider the mobility of
travelers using all modes of surface
transportation such as highways,
commuter railways, bikeways, and
walkways. The measure proposed in
this rulemaking to assess traffic
congestion does not fully address this as
it is focused only on vehicle delays on
NHS highways. The FHWA elected to
propose a vehicle delay measure at this
time due to the limited availability of
reliable, accurate, comprehensive, and
timely data for the other surface
transportation modes. This type of data
would be needed to calculate a more
comprehensive delay measure that
considers all travelers and all surface
modes of transportation. However,
FHWA would like to move to a measure
in the future that would consider the
mobility of travelers using all surface
modes of transportation and is seeking
comment on feasible approaches that
can be taken to move toward the
development of such as measure. The
CMAQ traffic congestion delay measure
proposed in this rulemaking does
consider the travel times of vehicles and
passengers to the extent they are
captured as sources during data
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23835
collection. In addition, the CMAQ traffic
congestion delay measure is expressed
as a rate by dividing the total vehicle
delay in the area by the total population
of the area, which would potentially
reflect successful implementation of
strategies to provide transportation
choices other than highway travel. This
proposal is discussed in more detail in
the Section-by-Section portion of this
preamble for Subpart G.
Improving the Operations of the
Existing Transportation Network by
Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA heard from many
stakeholders that the traffic congestion
measure should directly capture the
impact of transportation network
connectivity issues and land use
decisionmaking to improve public
accessibility to essential services. The
FHWA believes that the delay measure
proposed in this rulemaking to assess
traffic congestion will reflect these types
of strategies to the degree they minimize
impacts on highway traffic operations.
However, FHWA is not proposing a
measure to directly assess transportation
connectivity or accessibility. The focus
of the proposed measure is to improve
the operations of the existing network
by reducing congestion, and does not
assess if the network or use of land, as
designed, is providing for the most
efficient connections to adequately
move people and goods from their
origin to their destination. The FHWA
believes that the scope of 23 U.S.C.
150(c) relates to establishing measures
for State DOTs and MPOs to use to
assess traffic congestion for the purpose
of carrying out section 149, which is a
component of the Federal-aid highway
program. Improving overall network
connectivity is a priority for DOT and
FHWA. Outside of this rulemaking,
FHWA, in cooperation with FTA, is
actively working with transportation
operating agencies and planning
organizations on efforts to understand
and advance best practices in assessing
and managing transportation network
connectivity to improve public
accessibility to essential services.
B. Issues Relating to Subpart H
In the development of the
requirements in Subpart H, FHWA
attempted to use a similar approach as
in other subparts. Subpart H is focused
on emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded
projects in a nonattainment or
maintenance area. A summary of the
framework used is discussed below.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23836
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Use of Existing/Available Dataset for
Assessing On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
This rulemaking proposes to use data
included in the existing CMAQ Public
Access System to calculate the metric
for the on-road mobile source emissions
measure. The CMAQ Public Access
System is a database of CMAQ project
information reported by each State DOT
as part of the CMAQ annual reports to
FHWA. The Public Access System
contains all CMAQ-funded projects by
Federal fiscal year and their estimated
emissions reductions by pollutant and
precursor applicable to the CMAQ
program. For purposes of calculating the
on-road mobile source emissions
measure, use of this existing data set
provides a national data source for
emissions reductions estimates and will
not require a new data collection
process.
Dealing With Missing Data When
Assessing On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
While quantitative emissions
reductions are expected for most
projects entered into the CMAQ Public
Access System, it is not required nor has
it been possible for some pollutants,
especially PM emissions. Project
sponsors have always had the option to
provide a qualitative assessment based
on a reasoned and logical evaluation of
a project or programs emission benefits.
Also, prior to December 20, 2012, EPA’s
emission model had significant
limitations that made it unsatisfactory
for use in microscale analyses of PM2.5
and PM10 emissions. Once MOVES was
released on December 20, 2010, areas
had a 2 year grace period before the
model was required to be used for CAA
purposes and many areas also used that
grace period to transition to using the
model for estimating emissions for
CMAQ projects. Therefore, the CMAQ
Public Access System includes a mix of
both quantitative and qualitative
emissions estimates, and in some cases,
incomplete emissions estimates for
certain pollutants.52
In order to reflect the performance of
the CMAQ program in reducing on-road
mobile source emissions, FHWA is
proposing to include only projects with
quantitative emissions estimates in the
proposed measure. The FHWA
understands that State DOTs and/or
MPOs may want to amend their project
information with quantitative emissions
estimates so the emissions reductions
can be included in the performance
52 FHWA
is currently conducting a research effort
in an attempt to understand the impact of missing
data in the implementation of this measure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
measure. The FHWA is proposing that
State DOTs and/or MPOs be allowed to
amend their emissions information for
projects in the CMAQ Public Access
System to include a quantitative
emissions estimate where a qualitative
analysis may have been used in the past
or, in the case of PM emissions, where
an appropriate model was not available.
State DOTs and/or MPOs would not be
required to amend their project
information, but we are also soliciting
comments on other ways State DOTs
and/or MPOs may update or amend
their project information with
quantitative emissions estimates for use
in implementing this performance
measure.
Focus on Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas When Assessing OnRoad Mobile Source Emissions
The FHWA heard from stakeholders
that while all States receive some level
of CMAQ funding, the CMAQ on-road
mobile source emissions measure
should only apply in nonattainment and
maintenance areas. The main purpose of
the CMAQ program is to fund
transportation projects or programs that
will contribute to attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS for O3, CO,
and PM (both PM10 and PM2.5).
Therefore, FHWA determined that the
performance measure should also focus
on that same purpose. For this reason,
the proposed measure in this
rulemaking is only applicable to
nonattainment and maintenance areas
within a State. If a State does not have
any nonattainment or maintenance
areas, then FHWA is proposing this
measure would not apply to them.
Further Improvements to the Public
Access System To Ease the Assessment
On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
While the CMAQ Public Access
System has been available since summer
2011, and FHWA has been keeping a
database of CMAQ projects and their
estimated emissions since the beginning
of the program, there are opportunities
to improve the data. In addition to
increasing the number of projects with
quantitative emissions estimates, the
quality of the data and methods used to
calculate emissions can also be
improved. The FHWA is developing a
tool kit, that will be released in modules
beginning late spring 2016, of best
practices for estimating emissions by
project type for project sponsors to
improve the assumptions and
calculations used in their quantitative
estimates. The FHWA developed cost
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
effectiveness tables 53 to be used as a
guide by State DOTs and MPOs during
the project selection process and when
developing performance plans under 23
U.S.C. 149(l). Finally, FHWA also
improved the function and usability of
the Public Access System in February
2016 to make it easier to develop reports
needed for both this rulemaking and the
CMAQ performance plan requirements
under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).54
C. Detailed Discussion of the Proposed
Subparts
The elements discussed above were
used by FHWA to develop the proposed
regulations presented in this
rulemaking. The next sections of this
NPRM provide detailed discussions on
each of the proposed measures and how
they could be used by State DOTs and
MPOs to establish and report on targets
and by FHWA to assess progress made
toward the achievement of targets.
1. Subpart A: General Information,
Target Establishment, Reporting, and
NHPP and NHFP Significant Progress
Determination
In this section, FHWA describes the
proposed additions to Subpart A, which
covers general information, target
establishment, reporting, and NHPP and
NHFP significant progress
determination. This section builds on
the proposal introduced in the second
NPRM that covered measures to assess
pavement and bridge condition on the
NHS. For a complete picture, readers are
directed to the docket which contains
the regulatory text for Subpart A in its
entirety. In addition, this section also
incorporates the FAST Act changes to
the NHPP significant progress
determination, and the addition of a
requirement for a NHFP significant
progress determination. The discussions
of the proposed requirements are
organized as follows:
• Section 490.101 discusses proposed
definitions;
• Section 490.103 describes the
proposed data requirements;
• Section 490.105 presents the
proposed requirements related to
establishing performance targets;
• Section 490.107 discusses reporting
on performance targets;
• Section 490.109 describes assessing
significant progress toward achieving
the performance targets for the NHPP
and NHFP; and,
• Section 490.111 discusses the
material FHWA would incorporate by
reference into the proposed rule.
53 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_
quality/cmaq/reference/cost_effectiveness_tables/
costeffectiveness.pdf.
54 https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/cmaq_pub/.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The proposed measures in this NPRM
are summarized in Table 9 below. The
proposed measures are grouped in
490.105(c) to better reference the
23837
proposed measures throughout Subpart
A.
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MEASURES IN THE 3RD NPRM
Proposed
performance
measures
[23 CFR]
Measure applicability
[23 CFR]
Metric data source
[23 CFR] & collection
frequency
Metric reporting
Metric
Measure calculation
Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times
[§ 490.507(a)(1)].
Mainline of the Interstate System
[§ 490.503].
NPMRDS or Equivalent [§ 490.103]—
5-minute cycle.
Annual metric reporting to HPMS
[§ 490.511(d)].
Level of Travel Time
Reliability (LOTTR)
[§ 490.511].
Percent of the nonInterstate NHS
providing for Reliable Travel Times
[§ 490.507(a)(2)].
Mainline of the nonInterstate NHS
[§ 490.503].
NPMRDS or Equivalent [§ 490.103]—
5-minute cycle.
Annual metric reporting to HPMS
[§ 490.511(d)].
Level of Travel Time
Reliability (LOTTR)
[§ 490.511].
Percent of the Interstate System
where peak hour
travel times meet
expectations
[§ 490.507(b)(1)].
Percent of the nonInterstate NHS
where peak hour
travel times meet
expectations
[§ 490.507(b)(2)].
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for
Reliable Truck
Travel Times
[§ 490.607(a)].
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage Uncongested
[§ 490.607(b)].
Mainline of the Interstate System in urbanized areas with
a population over
1 million
[§ 490.503].
Mainline of the nonInterstate NHS in
urbanized areas
with a population
over 1 million
[§ 490.503].
Mainline of the Interstate System.
NPMRDS or Equivalent [§ 490.103]—
5-minute cycle.
Annual metric reporting to HPMS
[§ 490.511(d)].
Peak Hour Travel
Time Ratio
(PHTTR)
[§ 490.511].
NPMRDS or Equivalent [§ 490.103]—
5-minute cycle.
Annual metric reporting to HPMS
[§ 490.611(d)].
Peak Hour Travel
Time Ratio
(PHTTR)
[§ 490.511].
NPMRDS or Equivalent [§ 490.103]—
5-minute cycle.
Annual metric reporting to HPMS
[§ 490.611(d)].
Truck Travel Time
Reliability
[§ 490.611].
Mainline of the Interstate System.
NPMRDS or Equivalent [§ 490.103]—
5-minute cycle.
Annual metric reporting to HPMS
[§ 490.611(d)].
Average Truck
Speed [§ 490.611].
Traffic congestion
measure
[§ 490.105(c)(7)].
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per
Capita [§ 490.707].
NPMRDS or Equivalent [§ 490.103]—
5-minute cycle.
Traffic volume and
population data in
HPMS.
Annual metric reporting to HPMS
[§ 490.711(f)].
Total Excessive
Delay [§ 490.711].
On-road mobile source
emissions measure
[§ 490.105(c)(8)].
Total Emission Reductions for applicable criteria pollutants [§ 490.807].
Mainline of NHS in
urbanized areas
with a population
over 1 million in
Nonattainment or
Maintenance for
any of the criteria
pollutants under
the CMAQ program.
All Nonattainment
and Maintenance
areas for CMAQ
criteria pollutants
[§ 490.803].
Percentage of the
Interstate directionmiles of reporting
segments with
‘‘LOTTR <1.50’’
[§ 490.513].
Percentage of the
Interstate directionmiles of reporting
segments with
‘‘LOTTR <1.50’’
[§ 490.513].
Percentage of the
non-Interstate NHS
direction-miles of
reporting segments
with ’’ PHTTR
<1.50’’ [§ 490.513].
Percentage of the
non-Interstate NHS
direction-miles of
reporting segments
with ’’ PHTTR
<1.50’’ [§ 490.513].
Percentage of the
Interstate directionmiles of reporting
segments with
‘‘Truck Travel Time
Reliability <1.50’’.
Percentage of the
Interstate directionmiles of reporting
segments with
‘‘Average Truck
Speed 50 mph’’
[§ 490.613].
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay per
Capita = (Total Excessive delay )/
(total population of
UZA ) [§ 490.713].
CMAQ Public Access
System.
CMAQ Public Access Annual Project EmisSystem [§ 490.809].
sion Reductions
[§ 490.811].
Measure groups in
§ 490.105(c)
NHS Travel time reliability measures
[§ 490.105(c)(4)].
Peak hour travel time
measures
[§ 490.105(c)(5)].
Freight movement on
the Interstate System measures
[§ 490.105(c)(6)].
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Discussion of Section 490.101
Definitions
General
In this section, FHWA proposes to
define and describe the proposed use of
key terms that will be used throughout
this NPRM. The first NPRM and the
second NPRM included several
definitions (full extent, HPMS, measure,
metric, National Bridge Inventory (NBI),
non-urbanized area, performance
period, and target) that are repeated in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
this NPRM to clarify the proposed
implementation of the performance
measures. Please see the docket for the
entire listing of proposed definitions
and for any additional information.
The FHWA proposes to define
‘‘criteria pollutant’’ in the same way as
this term is defined in the general
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart B (specifically, 40 CFR 93.152).
As part of this definition, FHWA
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cumulative emission
reduction due to all
projects for each
of the criteria pollutant or precursor
for which the area
is in nonattainment
or maintenance
(PM2.5, PM10, CO,
VOC and NOX).
[§ 490.813].
proposes to list the transportationrelated criteria pollutants from the
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.102(b)(1).
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition for ‘‘freight bottleneck’’ for
use in Part 490. A freight bottleneck is
a segment of the Interstate System not
meeting thresholds for freight reliability
and congestion, as identified in section
490.613, and any other locations the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23838
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
State DOT wishes to identify as a
bottleneck based on its own freight
plans or related documents.
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition for ‘‘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.
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.55
Numerous State DOTs and some 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
55 Highway Performance Monitoring System,
FHWA Office of Policy Information. https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/
nahpms.cfm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
that FHWA can use throughout the Part.
To have a consistent definition for
‘‘measure,’’ FHWA proposes to make a
distinction between ‘‘measure’’ and
‘‘metric.’’ Hence, 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 to include a
definition of the ‘‘National Performance
Management Research Data Set
(NPMRDS)’’ because use of this FHWAfurnished data set by States and MPOs
is proposed for calculating metrics to
assess: Performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS in
Subpart E; freight movement on the
Interstate System in Subpart F; and
traffic congestion for the purpose of
carrying out the CMAQ Program in
Subpart G. The FHWA’s proposed
definition of the NPMRDS is a data set
derived from vehicle-based probe data
that includes average travel times
representative of all segments of the
NHS for all traffic and for freight traffic.
It is important to note that for the
purpose of this rulemaking, the freight
measures require the use of the freight
traffic travel times that are
representative of freight trucks for those
segments that are on the Interstate
System only. The NPMRDS includes
freight trucks for all segments of the
NHS. Segments are defined by the
Traffic Message Channel (TMC) location
referencing system used by private
sector probe data providers. Segment
lengths are typically set as the distance
between interchanges, intersections,
etc., on roadways, and can be as small
as 1/10th of a mile or longer than 10
miles, depending on location. The data
set contains records that include average
travel times for every 5 minutes of every
day (24 hours) of the year, recorded and
calculated for every travel time segment
where probe data is available. The
NPMRDS does not include any imputed
travel time data (i.e., data that is not
from actual observations such as that
derived from historical data for similar
days/times). The NPMRDS is used by
FHWA to research and develop
transportation system performance
measures and information related to
mobility, including travel time, speed,
and reliability. Each travel time segment
in the NPMRDS has a maximum of
105,408 5-minute average travel time
data points annually.56 Monthly
56 Estimate based on 12 records per hour, 24
hours per day, and 366 days in the longest year that
could occur.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
updates to the NPMRDS are made
available to State DOTs and MPOs by
the middle of the month following
collection (e.g., February 2015 data
would be available around March 15,
2015). Each NPMRDS segment is
identifiable via a unique geographic
location reference called a TMC code.
The TMC codes are used by most
private sector mapping companies and
data providers. Any State DOT or MPO
using NPMRDS data has the option to
use the TMC coding system to match the
NPMRDS segment-level data to the State
DOT or MPO’s own NHS location
referencing system. The FHWA believes
use of a national travel time data set by
States or MPOs will yield the best data
consistency across the States and MPOs
and provide for total coverage of the
NHS.
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’’ area include a
single geographic area that includes all
‘‘rural’’ areas and small urban areas that
are larger than ‘‘rural’’ areas but do not
meet the criteria of an ‘‘urbanized area’’
(as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34)). This
would then allow State DOTs to
establish different targets throughout the
entire State for urbanized areas and a
target for a non-urbanized area. For
target establishment purposes, 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 years that
would be used to assess non-safety
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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
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. For the measures in section
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) in Parts C
through G, FHWA proposes a definition
for ‘‘Performance period’’ that would
cover a 4-year period beginning on
January 1 of the calendar year in which
State DOT targets are due to FHWA, as
discussed in section 490.105. For the
on-road mobile source emission
measure in section 490.105(c)(8) in Part
H, FHWA proposes a definition for
‘‘Performance period’’ that would cover
a 4-year period beginning on October 1st
of the year prior in which State DOT
targets are due to FHWA, as discussed
in section 490.105. Please refer to
section 490.105(e)(4) for more details.
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
Parts C though H. The proposed
measures for the HSIP provided for in
section 490.209 in Part B where FHWA
proposed a 1 calendar year period as the
basis for measurement, target
establishment and reporting.
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition of ‘‘Reporting Segment’’
because, with FHWA’s approval, State
DOTs and MPOs may choose to
combine individual Travel Time
Segments (such as the TMC codes
referenced in the prior paragraph) into
longer, contiguous reporting segments.
The FHWA’s proposed definition of
‘‘Reporting Segment’’ is the length of
roadway that is comprised of one or
more contiguous Travel Time Segments
that the State DOT and MPOs
coordinate to define for metric
calculation and reporting.
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition for ‘‘target’’ to indicate how
measures will be used for target
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
establishment by State DOTs and MPOs
to assess performance or condition.
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition of ‘‘Transportation
Management Area (TMA)’’ consistent
with the definition in 23 CFR 450.104.
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition of ‘‘Travel Time Data Set’’
because in the event that either (1)
NPMRDS data is unavailable, or (2) a
State DOT requests, and FHWA
approves the use of an equivalent data
set, then the approved equivalent set of
travel time data can be used to calculate
metrics to assess performance of the
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS, freight movement on the Interstate
System, and traffic congestion for the
purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
Program. The FHWA’s proposed
definition of ‘‘Travel Time Data Set’’ is
either the NPMRDS or an FHWAapproved equivalent data set that is
used to carry out the requirements in
Subparts E, F, and G of Part 490.
The FHWA proposes to include a
definition of ‘‘Travel Time Reliability’’
since this term is used to describe
proposed measures for the performance
of the Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS and for freight movement
on the Interstate System. The FHWA’s
proposed definition for Travel Time
Reliability is consistency or
dependability of travel times from day
to day or across different times of the
day. The definition is based on one that
FHWA has used in prior research and
studies. The FHWA believes that Travel
Time Reliability is important to many
transportation system users, including
vehicle drivers, public transit riders,
and freight shippers. All of these users
value Travel Time Reliability, or
consistent travel times, more than
average travel time because it provides
reliability and efficiency when planning
for trip times.
The FHWA’s proposed definition of
‘‘Travel Time Segment’’ is a set length,
which is contiguous, of the NHS for
which average travel time data are
summarized in the Travel Time Data Set
(in the NPMRDS, this would be the
TMC codes).
The FHWA proposes to incorporate
definitions for ‘‘attainment area,’’
‘‘maintenance area,’’ ‘‘metropolitan
planning organization (MPO),’’
‘‘National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS),’’ ‘‘nonattainment
area,’’ and ‘‘Transportation Management
Area (TMA)’’ as these terms are defined
in the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan
and Metropolitan Transportation
Planning Regulations in 23 CFR
450.104.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23839
Discussion of Section 490.103 Data
Requirements
The FHWA is proposing in section
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
would be maintained in the HPMS and
used to calculate measures that are
applicable to specific urbanized areas or
to assess State DOT progress toward the
achievement of targets established for
urbanized and non-urbanized areas.
These boundaries are to be reported to
HPMS in the year the State DOT
Baseline Performance Report is due
(required in section 490.107(b)), and are
applicable to the entire performance
period (defined in section 490.101 and
described in section 490.105(e)(4)),
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 (section
490.105(e)(3)), and progress reporting
(section 490.107(b)) for the measures
identified in section 490.105(c). As
discussed in section 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,
2018. The FHWA approved urbanized
area data available in HPMS on June 16,
2018, is to be used.
In section 490.103(c), FHWA is
proposing that the boundaries for the
nonattainment and maintenance areas
be identified for the entire performance
period as they are designated and
reported by the EPA under the NAAQS
for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable under the CMAQ program.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23840
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The nonattainment and maintenance
area would be based on the effective
date of EPA designations as published
in the Federal Register at 40 CFR part
81. States may also want to review
EPA’s ‘‘Green Book’’ 57 Web site that
provides an easy to search tool by
pollutant of EPA designations and links
to the associated Federal Register
Notices. The EPA’s ‘‘Green Book’’ is
updated about twice per year, so States
should also check with their local
FHWA division office to ensure they
have a complete list of all
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for the performance period. Any
changes in the nonattainment or
maintenance areas in a State during a
performance period would not be
accounted for until the following
performance period.
In section 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
(section 490.105(c)), target scope
(section 490.105(d)), progress reporting
(section 490.107(b)), and determining
significant progress (section 490.109(d))
for the measures identified in section
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7). As
discussed in section 490.105(e)(3)(i), the
NHS limits dataset referenced in the
Baseline Performance Report is to be
applied to the entire performance
period, regardless of changes to the NHS
approved and submitted to HPMS
during the performance period.
Depending on when the final rule for
this proposal is effective, FHWA plans
to determine and publish which State
DOTs and MPOs are required to
establish targets for each of the
proposed measures in Subparts C
through H 1 year prior to State DOT’s
reporting of the targets for the first
performance period. The FHWA plans
to make the determination based on the
following information: Population data
from the latest Decennial Census from
the U.S. Census Bureau, NHS data from
HPMS, and the EPA designated
nonattainment and maintenance area
published in the Federal Register at 40
CFR part 81 58 at the time of
determination. Based on this
information, FHWA plans to publish a
list on its Web site of State DOTs and
57 See https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
index.html.
58 States may also use EPA’s ‘‘Green Book’’
(https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
index.html) as a reference to check the status of
EPA designations and find links to the associated
Federal Register Notices.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
MPOs meeting the target establishment
requirements for Subparts C–H. Please
refer to the discussions for sections
490.105(d), 490.105(e)(1), and
490.107(b)(1).
Beginning with the second
performance period and continuing
with each performance period
thereafter, at the start of each
performance period, FHWA will extract
the population data from the latest
Decennial Census from the U.S. Census
Bureau, NHS data from HPMS, and the
EPA designated nonattainment and
maintenance areas published in the
Federal Register at 40 CFR part 81, to
determine which State DOTs and MPOs
are required to establish targets for each
of the proposed measures in Subparts
C–H, for that performance period. Based
on this information, and at the start of
each performance period, FHWA plans
to publish a list on its Web site of State
DOTs and MPOs meeting the target
establishment requirements for Subparts
C–H.
In section 490.103(e), FHWA is
proposing for State DOTs and MPOs to
use the NPMRDS data to calculate the
metrics defined in sections 490.511,
490.611, and 490.711 to ensure all data
used by State DOTs to calculate travel
time and speed related metrics are
consistent and complete. If more
detailed and accurate travel time data
exists locally, FHWA is proposing that
this data could be used in place of, or
in combination with the NPMRDS,
provided it is first approved by FHWA.
The NPMRDS is a data set that
includes travel times representative of
all traffic using the highway system,
including a breakdown of travel times of
freight vehicles and passenger vehicles.
Travel times are recorded on contiguous
segments of roadway covering the entire
mainline NHS. For the NPMRDS the
sources of vehicle probes could include
mobile phones, vehicle transponders,
and portable navigation devices. Within
this data set, the average travel time
derived from all vehicle probes
traversing each Travel Time Segment is
recorded for every 5 minute period
throughout every day of the year. This
recorded average travel time is
referenced as being stored in a ‘‘5
minute bin’’ in this rulemaking. Travel
times are only included in the data set
if during the 5 minute interval vehicle
probes were present to measure travel
speeds; consequently, there are no
imputed (averaged from similar
historical travel periods or estimated)
travel times in the data set. The NHS
data used in the NPMRDS dataset will
be extracted from HPMS on August 15
each year. State DOTs are to provide the
necessary NHS information to HPMS in
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accordance with the HPMS Field
Manual. States should make every effort
to submit NHS data to HPMS in a timely
manner to ensure the NPMRDS dataset
is as complete as possible. The
NPMRDS is provided monthly and
made available to State DOTs and MPOs
for their use in managing the
performance of the highway system. The
FHWA expects to continue to provide
for this data at a national level and to
make it available to State DOTs and
MPOs to ensure the data consistency
and coverage needed to assess system
performance at a national level.
The FHWA recognizes that some State
DOTs and MPOs have developed robust
programs to manage system operations,
including collection of travel time data
that may be more appropriate and
effective to use as an alternative source
to the NPMRDS. Considering this,
FHWA is proposing that State DOTs and
MPOs may utilize alternative data
sources, referred to hereafter as
‘‘equivalent data source(s),’’ to calculate
the travel time metrics proposed in this
rulemaking provided the alternative
data source is at least ‘‘equivalent’’ in
the design and structure of the data as
well as extent of coverage both spatially
and temporally to the NPMRDS to
ensure for consistency in performance
assessment at a national level. The
FHWA expects that the travel time data
set could include a combination of
equivalent data source data and
NPMRDS data, as long as the
combination covers the full NHS. The
FHWA is also proposing that State
DOTs request and receive approval from
FHWA to use equivalent data source(s),
to ensure data quality is maintained.
The same travel time data for each travel
time segment must be used by both
State DOTs and MPOs in all measure
calculation (in other words, the
following must not happen: The State
DOT uses NPMRDS and the MPO uses
an equivalent data source for the same
travel time segment). The FHWA
expects that State DOTs and MPOs will
work collaboratively to come to
agreement on the data sources to use to
meet the requirements proposed in this
rulemaking.
The FHWA is proposing in section
490.103(e) that the use of equivalent
data source(s) be requested by State
DOTs and approved by FHWA before
the beginning of a performance period.
The FHWA anticipates that State DOTs
could change their data source during a
performance period, recognizing that
over this period a State DOT may elect
to use an equivalent data source(s) or
change back to the NPMRDS based on
future data options, quality, and
availability. The FHWA is proposing
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
that State DOTs limit requests for the
use of equivalent data sources to no
more frequently than once per calendar
year, and only include requests for data
to be collected beginning on January 1
of the calendar year following the
request. The request to use equivalent
data source(s) would need to be
submitted no later than October 1 prior
to the beginning of the calendar year in
which the data would be used to
calculate metrics. The FHWA would
need to approve the use of the
equivalent data source(s) prior to
implementation and use by a State DOT.
For example, a State DOT can elect to
use the NPMRDS for the first
performance period (anticipated to
begin on January 1, 2018). If the State
DOT acquires the resources to collect
more accurate and complete data in
2019, the State DOT would need to
submit a request for FHWA’s approval
of the equivalent data source(s),
including the travel time segment(s) it is
being used on, no later than October 1,
2019, and FHWA would have to
approve its use. The State DOT could
then use the FHWA approved
equivalent data source(s) to calculate
the travel time and speed metrics
beginning on January 1, 2020.
The FHWA is proposing that for each
performance year, the same data sources
(i.e., NPMRDS or equivalent data is used
for the same travel time segments for all
referenced measures) be used to
calculate the annual metrics proposed
in subparts E, F, and G. The State DOT
reporting of metrics to the HPMS
proposed in subparts E, F, and G allow
the State DOT to reference the reporting
segments by either the NPMRDS TMC
code or by HPMS location referencing.
It is important to note that if a State
DOT elects to use an approved
equivalent data source they would be
required to submit metrics using HPMS
location referencing as FHWA would
only have the ability to conflate
NPMRDS TMC codes to the HPMS
roadway network and not TMC codes
used in other travel time data sources.
The FHWA is proposing for State
DOTs to establish, in coordination with
applicable MPOs, and submit reporting
segments as discussed in section
490.103 of this rulemaking. State DOTs
and MPOs must use the same reporting
segment for the purposes of calculating
the metrics and measures proposed in
subparts E, F, and G.
The State DOT and MPO must use the
same reporting segments for all
subparts. Several measures would use
the information calculated from the
reporting segments and convert segment
length into mileage to calculate the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
actual measure, which is described in
more detail for each specific measure.
Reporting segments would be distinct
sections of roadway that could include
one or more contiguous travel time
segments. This requirement is being
proposed as FHWA anticipates that
State DOTs would prefer to join shorter
travel time segments into more logical
lengths of roadway for reporting
purposes. To maintain the granularity
needed to capture performance changes,
FHWA is proposing that in urbanized
areas, reporting segments would not
exceed 1⁄2 mile in length unless a single
travel time segment is longer in length,
and in non-urbanized areas, would not
exceed 10 miles in length unless a
single travel time segment in the travel
time data is longer in length. If a single
travel time segment in the travel time
data is longer than a 1⁄2 mile in length
in urbanized areas or 10 miles in length
in non-urbanized areas, the reporting
segment would be the length of that
single travel time segment.
In order to ensure that the reporting
segments cover the complete NHS
within a State, FHWA is proposing that
the reporting segments be continuous
and cover the full extent of the mainline
highways of the NHS. The FHWA
considered alternative approaches to
defining reporting segments that would
represent roadway key corridors to
show travel time performance for the
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS. Although FHWA believes that
corridor level evaluations are effective
in managing system operations, we did
not feel that a corridor based approach
could be designed and implemented in
manner that would provide for the
consistency and reliability needed to
report on performance at a State and
national level. For this reason, FHWA is
proposing that the reporting segments
represent 100 percent of the mainline
highways on the NHS applicable to the
measures in subparts E, F, and G.
Although the State DOTs would be
the entity required to submit reporting
segments, MPOs would need to
coordinate with State DOTs on defining
these reporting lengths for those
roadways that are within the portion of
the metropolitan planning area included
within the State boundary. In addition,
it is recommended that States DOTs
coordinate with any local transportation
operating agencies that have influence
over the management of traffic
operations in making the final decision
on reporting segment lengths.
In section 490.103(g), FHWA is
proposing that the State DOT would
submit its reporting segments to FHWA
no later than November 1, prior to the
beginning of the calendar year in in
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23841
which they will be used. These
reporting segments would be used
throughout the performance period. If
the State DOT requests and FHWA
approves an equivalent travel time data
source during the performance period,
the State DOT would need to submit a
new set of reporting segments that
would correspond to the new travel
time data source segmentation. These
reporting segments are to be submitted
to FHWA by November 1 prior to the
beginning of the calendar year in which
they will be used. For the purposes of
carrying out the requirements proposed
in Subpart E, FHWA is proposing that
the State DOT submit the travel times
desired for each reporting segment that
is fully included within urbanized areas
with populations over 1 million during
the peak period travel times (both
morning and evening). The FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs would
submit reporting segments and the
desired travel times to HPMS. The
FHWA intends to issue additional
guidance on how State DOTs could
report these data to HPMS. Finally, the
State DOT would be required to submit
documentation to demonstrate the
applicable MPOs’ agreement on the
travel time data set used, the defined
reporting segments, and the desired
travel times.
Discussion of Section 490.105
Establishment of Performance Targets
Performance target requirements
specific to HSIP-related measures would
be established in accordance with
section 490.209 of the first performance
management NPRM; and performance
target requirements specific to pavement
condition measures in sections
490.307(a) and bridge condition
measures in sections 490.407(c) are
included in the second performance
management NPRM. The discussions
specific to those measures will not be
repeated in this NPRM. For additional
information, please see the docket for
the proposed regulatory text for Part
490, in its entirety that covers both prior
NRPMs.
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 decisionmaking processes.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23842
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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 and strategy
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 section 490.105, FHWA proposes
the minimum requirements for State
DOTs and MPOs to follow in the
establishment of targets for all measures
identified in section 490.105(c), which
include the proposed measures both in
this performance management NPRM
and the second performance
management NPRM. This regulatory
text, in its entirety, can be found in the
docket. 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 section
490.105(a) for State DOTs and MPOs to
establish targets for each performance
measure identified in section
490.105(c). In section 490.105(b), the
performance targets for carrying out the
HSIP would be established in
accordance with section 490.209 of the
first performance management NPRM.
In section 490.105(c), FHWA proposes
that State DOTs and MPOs that include,
within their respective geographic
boundaries, any portion of the
applicable transportation network or
projects would establish performance
targets for the performance measures
identified in Subparts C through H. The
transportation network or geographic
areas applicable to each measure is
specified in Subparts C through H under
sections 490.303, 490.403, 490.503,
490.603, 490.703, and 490.803,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
respectively. It is possible that for some
measures, the applicable transportation
network or geographic area may not be
contained within the State or
metropolitan planning area geographic
boundary. In these cases State DOTs and
MPOs would not be required to
establish targets. The performance target
requirements established by Congress in
23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) require State DOTs and
MPOs to establish targets for the
measures described in 23 U.S.C. 150(c),
where applicable. Consequently, State
DOTs and MPOs are only required to
establish targets where their respective
geographic boundary contains portions
of the transportation network or
geographic area that are applicable to
the measure. For example, the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times
specified in section 490.507(a)(1) is
applicable, as proposed in section
490.503(a)(1), to ‘‘mainline highways on
the Interstate System.’’ In this example,
if Interstate System mainline highways
are not contained within the boundary
of an MPO’s metropolitan planning area
the measure would not be applicable to
that MPO. As a result, that MPO would
not be required to establish a target for
the proposed measure Percent of the
Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times specified in section
490.507(a)(1).
The FHWA proposes in section
490.105(d)(1) that State DOTs establish
statewide targets that represent
performance outcomes of the
transportation network or geographic
area within their State boundary, and
MPOs establish targets that represent
performance outcomes of the
transportation network or geographic
area within their respective
metropolitan planning area for the
proposed NHS travel time reliability
measures (section 490.507(a)), freight
movement on the Interstate System
measures (section 490.607), and on-road
mobile source emissions measure
(section 490.807). State DOTs and, if
applicable, MPOs are encouraged to
coordinate their target-establishment
with neighboring States and MPOs to
the extent practicable.
The FHWA proposes in section
490.105(d)(2) that State DOTs and MPOs
would establish a single urbanized area
target, as described in sections
490.105(e)(8) and 490.105(f)(4),
respectively, that would represent the
performance of the transportation
network in each area applicable to the
peak hour travel time measures (section
490.507(b)) and traffic congestion
measure (section 490.707) as proposed
in sections 490.503(a)(2) and 490.703,
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
respectively. The applicable areas for
the peak hour travel time measures are
proposed to be urbanized areas with a
population greater than 1 million. A
subset of these areas would be
applicable to the traffic congestion
measure: Those areas that also contain
any part of an area designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any
of the criteria pollutants applicable
under the CMAQ program. Based on the
2010 U.S. Census,59 the peak hour travel
time measures would be applicable to
the transportation network in 42
urbanized areas of which 33 of these
areas (based on the effective date of
EPA’s most recent designations in 40
CFR part 81) would apply to the traffic
congestion measure. The FHWA
believes that this proposed approach of
limiting the applicability of the peak
hour travel time and traffic congestion
measures is needed to focus
performance measurement and
reporting on only those areas in the
United States where transportation
demand can have a considerable impact
on performance and where the planning
and management of system operations
are critical to the achievement of
improved outcomes. The FHWA also
believes that the State DOTs and MPOs
in these larger urbanized areas have the
experience and capability needed to
meet these performance requirements.
In section 490.105(d), 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 MPO,
respectively, and recognizes that the
State DOT and the MPO need to
consider this uncertainty when
establishing targets. For example, some
Federal and tribal lands include 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)
59 Urbanized Area Boundary Data: 2010 TIGER/
LINE Shapefile published by the U.S. Census
Bureau (Accessed on 8/7/2013): ftp://
ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2010/UA/2010/.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
through (c)(7). State DOTs may request
modifications to the NHS, which could
result in additions, deletions, or
relocations. 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 for 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 in section
490.105(d)(3) that State DOTs must
declare and 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 section
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. Any changes in NHS limits or
urbanized area boundaries during a
performance period would not be
accounted for until the following
performance period.
In section 490.105(e), FHWA proposes
the State DOT requirements for the
establishment of targets for all measures
identified in section 490.105(c), with
applicable transportation network for
those targets (target scope) defined in
section 490.105(d). As defined in
section 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, Percent of the Interstate
System providing for Reliable Travel
Times (in section 490.507(a)(1)), would
be a percentage of directional mainline
highways on the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
(sections 490.503(a)(1) and 490.513(b))
expressed in one tenth of a percent.
Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for
this measure would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the
Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times expressed in one tenth of
a percent. As a hypothetical example, a
2-year target and a 4-year target would
be 39.5 percent and 38.5 percent,
respectively for the proposed measure
Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1) and
(e), FHWA proposes in section
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 section 490.107(b)(1). The
FHWA is proposing that this rule would
have an individual effective date.
Accordingly, FHWA anticipates the
final rule for this proposal would be
effective no later than October 1, 2017.
This would provide for at least a 1-year
period for States to establish targets so
that they can be reported in the first
State Biennial Performance Report
which would be due to FHWA by
October 1, 2018. The FHWA recognizes
that if the final rule is effective after
October 1, 2017, 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 will not be effective until after
October 1, 2017, FHWA will consider
adjusting the due date in the final rule
or issuing 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 section 490.105(e)(6),
FHWA is proposing that State DOTs
will 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
section 490.105(e)(2) that State DOTs
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/
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23843
performance in order for there to be a
jointly owned target establishment
process. This coordination is
particularly needed for the
establishment of the targets for the peak
hour travel time and traffic congestion
measures since a single target will be
established for each applicable 60
urbanized area that would need to be
reported identically by each applicable
State DOT and MPO. Please refer to
sections 490.105(e)(8) and 490.105(f)(4)
for discussion on the targets for the peak
hour travel time and traffic congestion
measures. The FHWA is seeking
comment on examples of effective State
DOT and MPO coordination. The
FHWA is specifically requesting
comment on the following questions
related to State DOT and MPO
coordination in light of the proposed
performance management requirements
in this rule: What obstacles do States
and MPOs foresee to joint coordination
in order to comply with the proposed
requirements? What mechanisms
currently exist or could be created to
facilitate coordination? What role
should FHWA play in assisting States
and MPOs in complying with these
proposed new requirements? What
mechanisms exist or could be created to
share data effectively between States
and MPOs? Are there opportunities for
States and MPOs to share analytical
tools and processes? For those States
and MPOs that already utilize some type
of performance management framework,
what are best practices that they can
share?
The FHWA proposes in section
490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to
establish additional targets, beyond the
required statewide target, for any of the
proposed measures for the travel time
reliability measures and freight
movement on Interstate System
measures described in sections
490.507(a) and 490.607, respectively.
This is intended to give the State DOT
flexibility when setting targets and to
aid the State DOT in accounting for
differences in urbanized areas and the
non-urbanized area. 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. For
instance, a State DOT could choose to
establish additional targets for a single
60 Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area
with a population greater than 1 million;
Traffic congestion measure: Urbanized area with
a population greater than 1 million and also any
part of the urbanized area is designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any of the
criteria pollutants applicable under the CMAQ
Program.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23844
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
urbanized area, a number of the
urbanized areas, or all of the urbanized
areas separately or collectively. For
State DOTs 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). For each additional
target established, State DOTs would
evaluate whether they have made
progress toward achieving each target
and report on that progress in their
biennial performance report in
accordance with sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B). The FHWA intends
to issue guidance regarding the
voluntary establishment of additional
performance targets for urbanized areas
and the non-urbanized area.
As proposed in section
490.105(e)(3)(v), for some measures
State DOTs will not be able to establish
additional targets. Since peak hour
travel time measures and traffic
congestion measures are proposed to
apply only to certain urbanized areas 61
(please refer to section 490.105(e)(8) for
target establishment discussion for these
measures), it would not be appropriate
to have additional targets. In addition,
FHWA anticipates that State DOTs
would focus on managing performance
for on-road mobile source emissions for
those areas designated as nonattainment
and maintenance areas,62 as discussed
in section 490.803, regardless of
whether those designated areas are
located in urbanized area or in nonurbanized area. Thus, rather than the
option for establishing additional targets
for urbanized areas and the nonurbanized area, FHWA proposes that
State DOTs could establish additional
targets for any combination of
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for the on-road mobile source emissions
measure. Please refer to section
490.105(e)(9) for target establishment
discussion for on-road mobile source
emissions measure.
If a State DOT chooses to establish
additional performance targets, it would
increase the number of performance
61 Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area
with a population greater than 1 million;
Traffic congestion measure: Urbanized area with
a population greater than 1 million and also any
part of the urbanized area is designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any of the
criteria pollutants applicable under the CMAQ
Program.
62 Nonattainment or maintenance for any of the
criteria pollutants applicable under the CMAQ
Program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
targets that it reports. For example, at a
minimum, State DOTs would be
required to establish two statewide
targets for NHS travel time reliability
measures (separate target for each of the
two measures identified in section
490.507(a)). If a State DOT chooses to
establish additional targets for the two
NHS travel time reliability measures for
the single largest urbanized area in its
State, the State DOT would increase the
total number of NHS travel time
reliability targets to four (2 required
targets + 2 additional urbanized area
targets = 4).
For each additional target established,
State DOTs would evaluate whether
they have made progress toward
achieving each target and report on that
progress in their biennial performance
report in accordance with sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
Any additional targets the State DOT
chooses to establish would not be
subject to the significant progress
assessment in section 490.109. Because
these additional targets are optional and
subcomponents of targets established
under section 490.105(d), including
them in the significant progress
assessment proposed in section 490.109
could result in ‘‘double counting’’
during that assessment. The FHWA
believes that excluding these additional
targets from the significant progress
assessment in section 490.109 provides
an opportunity for some flexibility with
respect to establishing the targets and
may 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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
flexibility 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).
As described in section 490.105(f), an
MPO would have the option to establish
a quantifiable target for their
metropolitan planning area. As
provided 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
urbanized and metropolitan planning
areas cross multiple State boundaries.
The FHWA intends for State DOTs and
the MPOs to collectively consider
boundary differences 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. Multistate MPOs would
also be expected to provide the data
stratified by State. The FHWA seeks
comments on target establishment
options and coordination methods that
could be used by MPOs and State DOTs
in areas where the MPO metropolitan
planning area crosses multiple States.
To illustrate the differences in
boundaries and how they might be
addressed for one of the travel time
reliability 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
Decennial Census, the State of Maryland
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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 in
the 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 the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times
within their entire metropolitan
planning area, regardless of State
boundary. In the case of the
Hagerstown—Eastern Panhandle MPO
in Maryland/Pennsylvania/West
Virginia, the MPO would establish
target for the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times
within its metropolitan planning
boundary that extends beyond Maryland
State boundary and into Pennsylvania
and West Virginia State boundaries,
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 is also
requesting comment on whether the
regulations should include more
information or specificity about how the
MPOs and States should coordinate on
target establishment. For some measures
proposed in this NPRM, MPOs could
establish targets up to 180 days after the
State DOT establishes its targets.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
The FHWA proposes in section
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. For the measures in section
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) of this
section, each performance period,
defined in section 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 section 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. For
the on-road mobile source emission
measure identified in section
490.105(c)(8) of this section, each
performance period would begin at the
start of the Federal fiscal year, on
October 1st of the year prior to which
the State DOT target is reported in the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report to FHWA and would extend for
a duration of 4 Federal fiscal years. The
midpoint of a performance period for
the on-mobile source emission measure
would occur 2 Federal fiscal years after
the beginning of a performance period.
For all measures in section 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(7), 2-year targets would
represent the anticipated or intended
condition/performance level at the
midpoint of each respective
performance period, and 4-year targets
would represent the anticipated or
intended condition/performance level at
the end of each respective performance
period. For the on-road mobile source
emission measure in section
490.105(c)(8), 2-year targets would
represent the anticipated cumulative
emissions reduction for the first 2 years
of a performance period, and 4-year
targets would represent the anticipated
cumulative emissions reduction for the
entire performance period. Please refer
to section 490.105(e)(9) for discussion
on targets for on-road mobile source
emission measure. It is important to
emphasize that established targets (2year and 4-year targets for all measures
in paragraph (c) of this section) 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 63 and NHS asset
management plans.64
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 believes 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
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 DOT’s
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 section 490.105(c)
and report the established targets to
FHWA by the statutory deadline for the
first biennial report of October 1,
2018.65 If the final rule is published
after September 1, 2016, FHWA will
publish guidance to assist State DOTs in
complying with Section 150(e) of MAP–
21. 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.66
In addition, FHWA considered the
data collection and reporting cycles
associated with proposed measures. For
example, the timeframe of collected data
used for calculating a measure for the
proposed measures in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(7) is on a calendar year
basis, but the timeframe of reported data
used for calculating a measure for the
proposed on-road mobile source
emissions measure in paragraph (c)(8) is
on a Federal fiscal year basis. The
FHWA also assessed the inherent time
lag between data collection and target
establishment due to necessary data
processing, data quality management,
65 23
U.S.C. 150(e).
U.S.C. 150(e), 23 U.S.C. 135(h), and 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
63 23
U.S.C. 135(f).
64 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
23845
66 23
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23846
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
that that the first 4-year performance
period start on January 1, 2018, and end
on December 31, 2021, and subsequent
performance periods would follow
thereafter, for the measures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) and first
4-year performance period start on
October 1, 2017, and end on September
30, 2021, and subsequent performance
periods would follow thereafter, for the
measures in paragraph (c)(8). As
indicated previously, FHWA plans to
align performance periods for the
proposed measures in this NPRM
(measures in paragraphs (c)(4) through
(c)(7) and the measures proposed in the
second performance management
measure NPRM 67 (measures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3)).
Diagrams for proposed performance
periods for target establishment,
condition/performance measure data
collection and assessment, and biennial
performance reporting are exhibited in
Figures 1 and 2. Please see section
490.107(a)(4) for discussion on the
Initial State Performance Report, which
is due on October 1, 2016.
67 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
National Performance Management Measures;
Assessing Pavement Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program and Bridge
Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program 80 FR 2014–30085 (published January 5,
2015) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-0105/pdf/2014-30085.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.000</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
Consequently, FHWA proposes two
different performance periods—one for
the measures in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(7) and one for on-road
mobile source emissions measure in
paragraph (c)(8). The FHWA proposes
As shown in Figure 1, for the first
performance period for all measures
except on-road mobile source emissions
measure in paragraph (c)(8), the latest
measured condition/performance data
through December 31, 2017, 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, 2019, 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 which would be indicated by the
latest measured condition/performance
data through the end of the performance
period (December 31, 2021, for the first
performance period). The FHWA
recognizes that the previously
programmed projects may have an
impact on the target a State DOT
establishes for the first performance
period. State DOTs should consider the
impact of previously programmed
projects on future performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
outcomes when establishing their
targets.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the latest 4year cumulative emissions reductions
results from CMAQ projects from fiscal
year 2014 through fiscal year 2017, is
the baseline condition/performance. For
the first performance period for the onroad mobile source emissions measure,
State DOTs would establish 2-year
targets which would reflect the
anticipated cumulative emissions
reductions resulting from CMAQ
projects to be reported in the CMAQ
Public Access System (described in
section 490.809) for the Federal fiscal
years 2018 and 2019. Thus, the 2-year
target would be the anticipated sum of
total emission reductions in the CMAQ
Public Access System for the Federal
fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for each
criteria pollutant and applicable
precursors for which the area is
nonattainment or maintenance.
Similarly, the State DOTs would
establish 4-year targets as the
anticipated cumulative emissions
reductions resulting from CMAQ
projects to be reported in the CMAQ
Public Access System for the Federal
fiscal years 2018 through 2021. Thus,
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23847
the 4-year target would be the
anticipated sum of total emission
reductions in the CMAQ Public Access
System for the Federal fiscal years 2018
through 2021 for each criteria pollutant
and applicable precursors for which the
area is nonattainment or maintenance.
Similar to other measures, FHWA
recognizes that the previously
programmed CMAQ projects may have
an impact on target a State DOT
establishes for the first performance
period. State DOTs should consider the
impact of previously programmed
CMAQ projects on future performance
outcomes when establishing their
targets.
It is important to note that the
timeframe of collected data used for
calculating a measure depends on the
individual measure. Data collection
frequency requirements and the
timeframe for when State DOTs and
MPOs would collect data used for
calculating a measure are proposed in
the Data Requirement and Calculation of
Performance Measure Sections for each
measure in the relevant Subparts. This
proposed timeline, depicted in Figures
1 and 2, is intended to: (1) Satisfy the
first State DOT biennial performance
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.001</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23848
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
report due on October 1, 2018, as
described in the discussion on section
490.107; (2) accommodate data
collection cycles and the timeframe for
when State DOTs and MPOs would
collect data used for calculating a
measure; 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 and NHFP
targets as required under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7) and 23 U.S.C. 167(j). The
FHWA must make this determination
every 2 years, after a State DOT submits
each biennial report.
The FHWA proposes in section
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 by 23 U.S.C. 150(e) as
specified in section 490.107. As
discussed in section 490.105(e)(2), State
DOT coordination with relevant MPOs
is 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 as described in
section 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 section
490.109(e)(5)) outside the control of the
State DOTs.
Thus, FHWA proposes in section
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 section
490.107(b)(2)). This target adjustment
allowance would be limited to this
specific report and not be 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
necessary to carry out these program
requirements in an equitable manner.
For example, the 4-year target
established in 2018 (the 1st State
Biennial Performance Report illustrated
in Figures 1 and 2) may be adjusted in
2020 (2nd State Biennial Performance
Report illustrated in Figures 1 and 2).
The State DOT would report and justify
this adjusted target in the second State
Biennial Performance Report due in
October 2020 (i.e., Mid Performance
Period Progress Report). As discussed in
section 490.105(d)(2) of this section,
FHWA proposes that State DOTs and
MPOs would establish a single
urbanized area 68 target, as described in
section 490.105(e)(8), that would
represent the performance of the
transportation network in each area
applicable to the peak hour travel time
and traffic congestion measures. Thus,
FHWA proposes that any adjustments
made to 4-year targets established for
the peak hour travel time and/or traffic
congestion measures would be agreed
upon and made collectively by all State
DOTs and MPOs that include any
portion of the NHS in the respective
urbanized area applicable to the
measure. The details of reporting
requirements for adjusting a target are
discussed in section 490.107(b)(2).
In section 490.105(e)(7), FHWA
proposes a phase-in for the
establishment of targets for the nonInterstate NHS travel time reliability
measure, provided in section
490.507(a)(2). This phase-in would
require only State DOTs to establish 4year targets for the first performance
period for this measure (reported in the
1st State Biennial Performance Report as
illustrated in Figure 1) for non-Interstate
NHS travel time reliability measure,
provided in section 490.507(a)(2). The
FHWA is proposing this phase-in to
allow sufficient time for State DOTs and
MPOs to become more proficient in
managing performance of non-Interstate
roadways and for the coverage of the
data, during peak periods, to become
more complete in the NPMRDS. At the
midpoint of the first performance period
State DOTs would have the option to
adjust the 4-year targets they established
at the beginning of the performance
period in their State Biennial
Performance Report (report due in
October 2020 as illustrated in Figure 1).
This will allow State DOTs to consider
68 Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area
with a population greater than 1 million; Traffic
congestion measure: Urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million and also any part
of the urbanized area is designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any of the
criteria pollutants applicable under the CMAQ
Program.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
more complete data in their decision on
the 4-year targets for non-Interstate NHS
travel time reliability. Although 2-year
targets would not be established in the
first performance period, FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs still would
report metrics annually, as required in
section 490.511(d)), for the nonInterstate NHS travel time reliability
measure.
Similarly FHWA is proposing to
phase-in the reporting of baseline travel
time reliability performance for the nonInterstate NHS travel time reliability
measure. The FHWA proposes that State
DOTs would report baseline
performance in the 2nd State Biennial
Performance Report in 2020 (instead of
the 1st report due in 2018) for nonInterstate NHS travel time reliability.
This baseline would represent the
performance through the end of 2019
(i.e., 2-year condition/performance).
Also, as State DOTs would not be
establishing 2-year targets for nonInterstate NHS travel time reliability,
FHWA will not evaluate performance
progress at the midpoint of the first
performance period (discussed further
in section 490.109(e)(3)) for this
measure.
In section 490.105(e)(8), as discussed
in sections 490.507(b) and 490.707,
FHWA proposes that the peak hour
travel time measure would apply to the
roadway transportation network in
urbanized areas with a population over
1 million and the traffic congestion
measure would include these same
areas that also contain areas designated
as nonattainment or maintenance areas
for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable under the CMAQ program.
The FHWA proposes that State DOTs,
with mainline highways on the
Interstate System that cross any part of
an urbanized area with a population
more than 1 million within its
geographic State boundary, would
establish a target for peak-hour travel
time for the Interstate System for that
urbanized area. Similarly, FHWA
proposes that State DOTs, with mainline
highways on the non-Interstate NHS
that cross any part of an urbanized area
with a population more than 1 million
within its geographic State boundary,
would establish a target for peak-hour
travel time for the non-Interstate NHS
for that urbanized area. The FHWA
proposes that if a State DOT is required
to establish targets for either of the peak
hour travel time measures for an
urbanized area and that urbanized area
contains any part of a nonattainment or
maintenance area for any one of the
criteria pollutants, as specified in
section 490.703, then that State DOT
would also be required establish targets
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
for the traffic congestion measure. For
instance, if a State is in attainment for
the applicable criteria pollutants, but
that State is part of a multistate
urbanized area with more than 1 million
in population and another part of that
urbanized area contains an applicable
nonattainment or maintenance area then
the State that is in attainment would be
required to work with the other States
and establish a traffic congestion target.
In deciding to limit the applicability
of these performance measures, FHWA
considered a number of factors. In
general, the boundary limits of large
urbanized areas are representative of
population size and density. The FHWA
believes that the need to plan for and
manage transportation demand is
greatest in areas of the country where
populations are high and more densely
located. The FHWA also believes that in
these largest urbanized areas State DOTs
and MPOs have the experience and
capability needed to plan and manage
high levels of transportation demand.
For these reasons, FHWA is proposing,
as discussed in Subparts E and G, an
approach to limit the applicability of the
peak hour travel time and traffic
congestion measures to only those
roadway networks that are contained in
very large urbanized areas. The FHWA
believes that the MAP–21 statewide and
metropolitan target establishment
provisions 69 only require State DOTs
and MPOs to establish targets where the
measure is applicable to them. Because
some State DOTs and MPOs do not
include these very large urbanized
areas, it is highly likely that those State
DOTs and MPOs would not be required
to establish targets for the peak hour
travel time and traffic congestion
measures. Based on the 2010 Decennial
U.S. Census 70 and a recent EPA
designation 71 of nonattainment and
maintenance areas, there are 42
urbanized areas in the country where
the population is greater than 1 million
and of these 33 are designated as
nonattainment or maintenance areas.
Using these boundaries, 35 State DOTs
and 67 MPOs 72 would be required to
69 Target establishment provisions: Statewide 23
U.S.C.135(d)(2)(B)(i)(I); Metropolitan 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I).
70 Urbanized Area Boundary Data: 2010 TIGER/
LINE Shapefile published by the U.S. Census
Bureau (Accessed on 8/7/2013): ftp://
ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2010/UA/2010/
Population Data for Urbanized Areas (Accessed on
8/7/2013): https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/
ua/urban-rural-2010.html.
71 The status of the nonattainment/maintenance
areas was verified on 5/1/2015 based on EPA’s
Green Book (updated on April 14, 2015): https://
www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_
download.html.
72 Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA
HEPGIS (Accessed on 10/15/2015): https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
establish targets for peak hour travel
time measures and 33 State DOTs and
42 MPOs would be required to establish
a target for the traffic congestion
measure. Based on the data available,
FHWA has estimated the State DOTs
and MPOs who might be affected by
proposed peak hour travel time and
traffic congestion measures. A list 73 of
those State DOTs and MPOs is included
in the docket.
The FHWA is proposing that the
applicable areas would be determined at
the beginning of a performance period
and remain for the duration of the
performance period regardless of
changes that could result from U.S.
Census or EPA designation changes
during the performance period.
As population continues to grow there
will be an increased potential for large
urbanized areas to extend across State
borders and/or metropolitan planning
area boundaries necessitating an
increased level of coordination of
multiple entities to plan for and manage
transportation demand. The FHWA
believes that State DOTs and MPOs
should collectively work together to
support a common transportation
performance vision for the area. The
FHWA also believes that, through
congestion management planning being
done by MPOs serving a TMA as part of
the planning process,74 an increased
level of coordination is occurring today,
especially in the largest urbanized areas
across the country. For this reason,
FHWA is proposing in section
490.105(e)(8) that a single, unified target
for each of the peak hour travel time
measures and a single, unified target for
the traffic congestion measure be
established for each applicable
urbanized area in the country. For each
of these urbanized areas, the peak hour
travel time and traffic congestion targets
would be collectively established by all
State DOTs and MPOs that have, within
their respective boundaries, any portion
of the applicable roadway network in
the applicable urbanized area.
Consequently, the 2-year and 4-year
targets established for peak hour travel
time and traffic congestion measures
would be reported identically by each
State DOT and MPO in the applicable
area. Also, under the proposed
approach, any adjustments to the 4-year
target would be made for the entire
applicable urbanized area; resulting in
identical reporting of the adjustment by
hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/View
Map.aspx?map=MPO+Boundaries|MPO+
Boundary#.
73 Documents ‘‘Peak Hour Travel Time Measure
States and MPOs.pdf’’ and ‘‘CMAQ Measure States
and MPOs.pdf’’ in the docket.
74 See 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23849
each State DOT and MPO in the
applicable areas. For example, based on
the most recent U.S. Census, four State
DOTs and four MPOs have nonInterstate NHS mileage within their
respective boundaries that are contained
within or cross into the Philadelphia
Urbanized Area. Although the share of
the non-Interstate NHS network varies
considerably among the eight entities,
each would be required to report the
same target that would be developed
through a coordinated approach, for the
Philadelphia Urbanized Area. In this
area any adjustments to the target would
also need to be made and agreed upon
by all eight entities. The FHWA
considered separate State DOT and
MPO targets for their share of the
transportation network within an
urbanized area for the targets for the
peak hour travel time and traffic
congestion measures. However, FHWA
believes that performances related to
peak hour travel time and traffic
congestion within each entity’s
geographic boundary within an
urbanized area would heavily impact
the performances of the surrounding
entities in that urbanized area. To
encourage an increased level of
coordination for effectively managing
transportation demand of an urbanized
area for these measures, FHWA is
proposing a single target for each
applicable urbanized area.
State DOTs and MPOs would also be
required to establish targets for peak
hour travel time and traffic congestion
measures for more than one urbanized
area if their respective boundaries
intersect or include multiple applicable
urbanized areas. For example, based on
the most recent U.S. Census, Maryland
DOT would be required to establish
targets for three applicable urbanized
areas: Baltimore, Washington, DC, and
Philadelphia. As discussed above, the
targets established for these three areas
would be shared by the other applicable
State DOTs and MPOs.
In section 490.105(e)(8)(vi), FHWA
proposes a phase-in for the
establishment of targets for the traffic
congestion measure in section 490.707.
As discussed previously for the nonInterstate NHS travel time reliability
targets, this phase-in is being proposed
to provide sufficient time for State DOTs
and MPOs to become more proficient in
managing traffic congestion
performance and for the travel time data
coverage to be more complete in the
NPMRDS. The proposed traffic
congestion measure requires complete
data coverage to capture all excessive
delay occurrences throughout the day at
a 5-minute level of granularity. In
addition, as indicated in section
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23850
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
490.711, the metric for the proposed
traffic congestion measure requires the
integration of travel time and traffic
volume datasets. For these reasons,
FHWA believes more time is needed
before State DOTs and MPOs can
reliably establish meaningful targets for
traffic congestion.
The FHWA is aware that the NPMRDS
will be lacking data on the nonInterstate NHS roadways in the shortterm (missing data is discussed in a
white paper provided on the docket). If
2-year targets were to be established in
the first performance period, the
NPMRDS will be lacking data on the
non-Interstate NHS roadways. The
FHWA anticipates that enough data
would be missing to make it difficult for
States to establish reasonable targets. By
the time the 2-year condition/
performance are calculated, FHWA
expects the NPMRDS data to have
improved to an acceptable level for this
measure. Also, States would have time
to understand the impact of missing
data on target establishment. Full
compliance is required starting from the
second performance period. Thus,
FHWA proposes that for the first
performance period, as with the nonInterstate travel time reliability measure,
State DOTs would only be required to
establish their 4-year targets for the
traffic congestion measure in the
beginning of the first performance
period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial
Performance Report in 2018 illustrated
in Figure 1) for the traffic congestion
measure. If necessary, 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 2020
illustrated in Figure 1) as described in
section 490.105(e)(6). Although 2-year
targets would not be established in the
first performance period, FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs still would
report metrics annually, as required in
section 490.711(f).
For the first performance period only,
the baseline traffic congestion
performance would be reported by the
State DOT at the midpoint of the
performance period in their 2nd State
Biennial Performance Report in 2020
(illustrated in Figure 1). This baseline
report would represent traffic
congestion performance through 2019
(i.e., 2-year condition/performance).
The FHWA proposes in section
490.105(e)(9) the State DOT target
establishment requirements for the
proposed on-road mobile source
emission measure, identified in section
490.807. In paragraph (i) of this section,
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
establish a statewide target for all areas
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
within the State geographic boundaries
designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for the O3, CO, or PM
(PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS.
In section 490.105(e)(9)(ii), FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would
establish separate statewide targets for
each of the applicable criteria pollutant
and precursor (PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC
and NOX) for which the State is
designated as nonattainment or
maintenance, as described in section
490.807.
As proposed in section
490.105(e)(4)(iii) and (e)(4)(iv), the 2year targets for this measure would
reflect the anticipated cumulative
emissions reduction to be reported for
the first 2 years of a performance period
by (i.e., total emissions reduced for 2
fiscal years) pollutant and precursor.
The 4-year target would reflect
anticipated cumulative emissions
reduction to be reported for the entire
performance period (i.e., total emissions
reduced for 4 fiscal years) by pollutant
and precursor.
To implement the flexibility in 23
U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that provides State
DOTs the option for establishing
different targets for different areas of the
State and in consideration of the
measure that FHWA is proposing for onroad mobile source emissions, FHWA
proposes in section 490.105(e)(9)(iv)
that State DOTs would have the option
of establishing additional targets,
beyond the statewide targets, for any
number and combination of
nonattainment and maintenance areas
by applicable criteria pollutant and
precursors. For instance, a State DOT
could choose to establish additional
targets for a single nonattainment and
maintenance area and a single
applicable criteria pollutant or
precursor, a number of areas and
applicable pollutants or precursors, or
each of the areas and applicable
pollutants or precursors separately. A
State DOT that has multiple
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for multiple criteria pollutants could
decide to establish a target for one of the
areas and for only one of the applicable
pollutants or precursors within that
area. If a State DOT decides to establish
these additional targets, the
requirements for these targets are
similar to those provided in section
490.105(e)(3). The additional targets
would need to be described in the State
Baseline Performance Period Report. For
each additional target, State DOTs
would evaluate whether they have made
progress toward achieving the target and
report on that progress in their biennial
performance report in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
In sections 490.105(e)(9)(v) and
(e)(9)(vi), FHWA proposes that the State
DOT’s requirement for establishing
target(s) for on-road mobile source
emission measure would be by the
EPA’s nonattainment and maintenance
areas designations published in the
Federal Register in 40 CFR part 81 at
the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to
FHWA. States may also use EPA’s
‘‘Green Book’’ Web site 75 to check the
status of EPA designations. States
should also check with their local
FHWA division office to ensure they
have a complete list of all
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for the performance period. These
designations would be used for the
duration of the performance period
regardless of subsequent change in
designation status during that
performance period. In section
490.105(e)(9)(vii), FHWA proposes that
if a State geographic boundary does not
contain any part of areas designated by
the EPA as nonattainment or
maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable to the CMAQ
Program at the time when the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is
due to FHWA, then that State DOT is
not require to establish targets for onroad mobile source emissions measures
for that performance period.
Although both traffic congestion and
on-road mobile source emission
measures are proposed to carry out the
CMAQ Program, there are some
differences in how the targets for the
measures would be implemented. As
discussed in section 490.105(e)(8), the
targets for the traffic congestion measure
would apply to the NHS roadway
network in urbanized areas with a
population over 1 million that also
contain areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any
of the criteria pollutants applicable
under the CMAQ Program where as the
targets for on-road mobile source
emission measure would apply to all
nonattainment or maintenance areas for
any of the criteria pollutants applicable
under the CMAQ Program as discussed
in section 490.105(e)(9). The FHWA also
proposes that a single, unified target for
traffic congestion measure would be
established for each applicable
urbanized area in the country; whereas
target(s) for the on-road mobile source
emission measure would be bounded by
State geographic boundaries and
nonattainment or maintenance areas.
75 See https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
index.html.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, as discussed in section
490.105(e)(4), the performance period
for the traffic congestion measure would
be on a calendar year basis whereas the
performance period for the on-road
mobile source emission measure would
be on a Federal fiscal year basis. Even
though there are differences between
these measures, FHWA believes both of
these measures support two goals of the
CMAQ Program: To improve air quality
and relieve congestion. Both of these
measures also are consistent with the
National Goals of environmental
sustainability and congestion reduction
(23 U.S.C. 150(a)(3) and (a)(6)). In
section 490.105(f), FHWA proposes
MPO requirements for the establishment
of targets for all measures identified in
section 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 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.
Given these considerations, FHWA is
proposing that MPOs would be
required, depending on the measure, to
establish both 2-year and 4-year targets
or only 4-year targets.
As part of the MPO-State DOT
coordination in establishing State DOT
and MPO targets described in the
discussion of sections 490.105(e)(2) and
490.105(f)(2), FHWA proposes in
section 490.105(f)(1) that MPOs
establish targets with a 4-year
performance period identical to the
State DOT’s performance periods
discussed in the Section-by-Section
Discussion for 490.101 and
490.105(e)(4). It is important to
emphasize that established MPO targets
must be considered as interim
conditions/performance levels that lead
toward the accomplishment of longerterm performance expectations in the
MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation
Plan 76 and relevant State DOT NHS
asset management plans.77
The FHWA proposes in section
490.105(f)(1)(i) that each MPO would
establish 4-year targets for all applicable
measures in section 490.105(c) no later
than 180 days after the relevant State
DOT establishes its targets, described in
76 23
77 23
U.S.C. 134(i).
U.S.C. 119(e).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
the discussion of section
490.105(e)(1).78
The FHWA proposes in section
490.105(f)(1)(ii) that the MPOs with any
portion of the applicable roadway
network in an urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million would
establish both 2-year and 4-year targets
for the peak hour travel time measures,
as described in section 490.105(f)(4)(i).
In addition, the MPOs that have any
portion of the applicable roadway
network in an urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million and
contain areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance would
establish both 2-year and 4-year targets
for the traffic congestion measure, as
described in section 490.105(f)(4)(ii).
The FHWA is proposing this approach
because, as discussed section
490.105(e)(8), 2-year and 4-year targets
established for peak hour travel time
and traffic congestion measures would
represent the entire urbanized area, and
State DOTs and MPOs would report
identical targets for each of the
applicable urbanized areas. In addition,
for the traffic congestion measure, the
requirement to have targets every 2
years is consistent with the requirement
for these MPOs to report on this target
every 2 years under the performance
plan requirements of 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
For the on-road mobile source
emissions measure, whether an MPO
must establish 2-year and 4-year targets
or would only be required to establish
a 4-year target depends on if the MPO
is in an urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million and
contains areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any
of the criteria pollutants applicable to
the CMAQ program. An MPO in one of
these large urbanized areas would be
required to establish both 2-year and 4year targets for the on-road mobile
source emissions measure, as provided
in section 490.105(f)(5)(iii). An MPO
outside of these large urbanized areas
would only be required to establish a 4year target for the on-road mobile source
emissions measure, as required by
section 490.105(f)(1)(i); it would not be
required to establish a 2-year target as
provided in section 490.105(f)(1)(ii). In
proposing this approach, FHWA
considered that the MPOs in a larger
urbanized area would be required to do
78 23 U.S.C.134(h)(2)(C) requires that an MPO
establish targets 180 days after the relevant State
DOT establishes its target, but does not require that
the MPO establish the same number of targets as the
State. For certain measures, even where a State DOT
is establishing a 2-year and a 4-year target at the
start of a performance period, FHWA is proposing
that MPOs would only need to establish a 4-year
target.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23851
biennial reporting on these targets under
23 U.S.C. 149(l).
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 and NHFP targets under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7) and 23 U.S.C. 167(j). As a
result, FHWA proposes in section
490.105(f)(1)(iii) that MPOs would not
be required to establish 2-year targets for
the NHS travel time reliability measures
and freight movement on Interstate
System measures.
In the case of the first performance
period, FHWA anticipates that the State
DOTs would establish targets for the
measures listed in section 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 Figures 1 and 2 in the
discussion of section 490.105(e)(4). The
FHWA recognizes that the previously
programmed projects may have an
impact on the target an MPO establishes
for the first performance period. The
MPOs should consider the impact of
previously programmed projects on
future performance outcomes when
establishing their targets. As discussed
in section 490.105(e)(4), FHWA
recognizes that if the final rule is
effective after September 30, 2017, the
due date to report State DOT targets for
the first performance period may need
to be adjusted. If the rule is effective on
or after September 30, 2017, MPOs may
not have the opportunity to establish
their own targets in time for State DOTs
to consider those MPO targets when
submitting the 1st Baseline Performance
Period Report. If it becomes clear that
the final rule will not be effective until
after September 30, 2017, FHWA will
consider adjusting the due date in the
final rule or issuing implementation
guidance that would provide State
DOTs a 1-year period and MPOs 180
days thereafter to establish and report
targets. 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
section 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 450.
The FHWA recognizes the burden on
the MPOs to establish their own
performance targets. Consequently, as
proposed, the MPOs would have the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23852
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
flexibility to establish their targets using
one of the two options. The FHWA
proposes in section 490.105(f)(3) that,
for most of the measures, 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 target, or (2) committing to a
quantifiable target 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 do 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.
However, these MPO target
establishment options would not be
available for MPOs subject to the peak
hour travel time or the traffic congestion
measures because FHWA has proposed
that MPOs and the State DOTs subject
to these measures establish identical
targets. Also those MPO target
establishment options would not be
available for certain MPOs 79 for the onroad mobile source emissions measure
as those MPOs are required to commit
to their targets for the entire subject area
under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
As discussed previously, FHWA is
proposing that MPOs establish targets
for the peak hour travel time and traffic
congestion measures for applicable
urbanized areas. The FHWA proposes
that MPOs, with mainline highways on
the Interstate System that cross any part
of an urbanized area with a population
more than 1 million within its
metropolitan planning area boundary,
would establish a target for peak-hour
travel time for the Interstate System for
that urbanized area. Similarly, FHWA
proposes that MPOs, with mainline
highways on the non-Interstate NHS
that cross any part of an urbanized area
with a population more than 1 million
within its metropolitan planning area
boundary, would establish a target for
79 MPOs in an urbanized area with a population
greater than 1 million that contain areas designated
as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the
criteria pollutants applicable to the CMAQ program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
peak-hour travel time for the nonInterstate NHS for that urbanized area.
The FHWA proposes an MPO would
establish targets for the traffic
congestion measure when mainline
highways on the NHS within that
MPO’s metropolitan planning area
boundary cross any part of an urbanized
area with a population more than 1
million, and that portion of the
metropolitan planning area boundary
intersecting the urbanized area also
includes a nonattainment or
maintenance area for any one of the
criteria pollutants, as specified in
section 490.703. If an MPO’s
metropolitan planning area boundary
overlaps with an urbanized area where
a traffic congestion target is required but
that MPO is not required to establish the
traffic congestion target, then the MPO
should coordinate with relevant State
DOT(s) and MPO(s) in the target
selection process for the traffic
congestion measure. The FHWA is
proposing in section 490.105(f)(4) that
MPOs would be subject to the same
requirements as State DOTs for the
establishment of a single peak hour
travel time target and a single traffic
congestion target. This would require
MPOs to establish both 2-year and 4year targets that would be identical to
the targets reported by other State DOTs
and MPOs that share in roadway
network for the applicable urbanized
area. The proposed language is similar
to the proposal for State DOT targets for
these measures in section 490.105(e)(8).
It is possible that an MPO could be
required to establish more than 1 peak
hour travel time or traffic congestion
target if the boundary of the respective
metropolitan planning area includes
applicable roadways that are in
multiple, separate applicable urbanized
areas. Based on the data available 80 at
this time, FHWA has prepared a list 81
of the State DOTs and MPOs which
might be affected by proposed peak
hour travel time and traffic congestion
measures and included this list in the
docket.
In section 490.105(f)(4)(iv), FHWA
proposes the same requirements be
80 Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA
HEPGIS (Accessed on 5/1/2015): https://
hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/View
Map.aspx?map=MPO+
Boundaries√MPO+Boundary#. The nonattainment/
maintenance status of the MPOs areas was verified
on 5/1/2015 based on EPA’s Green Book (updated
on April 14, 2015): https://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/
greenbk/gis_download.html. Population Data for
Urbanized Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://
www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural2010.html.
81 Documents ‘‘Peak Hour Travel Time Measure
States and MPOs.pdf’’ and ‘‘CMAQ Measure States
and MPOs.pdf’’ in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
applied to MPOs for the traffic
congestion target as required for State
DOTs in sections 490.105(e)(8)(vi)(A)
and (e)(8)(vi)(B), which would require
only 4-year targets to be established for
the first performance period. This will
provide additional time needed for
MPOs to become more proficient in the
management of traffic congestion and
for travel time data coverage to be more
complete within the NPMRDS. Please
see discussion for section
490.105(e)(8)(vi) for more details.
The FHWA proposes in section
490.105(f)(5) MPO target establishment
requirements for the proposed on-road
mobile source emission measure,
identified in section 490.807. The
proposed language is similar to the
proposal for State DOT targets for these
measures in 490.105(e)(9). In section
490.105(f)(5)(i), FHWA proposes that
MPOs would establish targets for each
applicable criteria pollutant (and
precursor (PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC and
NOX) for which the area is designated as
nonattainment or maintenance under
the NAAQS.
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(9),
the MPOs would adhere to the Federal
fiscal year based performance periods
for the on-road mobile source emissions
targets. In paragraph (ii) of this section,
FHWA proposes that the MPOs would
establish targets as discussed in section
490.105(e)(9)(iii).
In section 490.105(f)(5)(iii), FHWA
proposes that if any part of the
nonattainment or maintenance area
within a metropolitan planning area for
any one of the applicable criteria
pollutants is located within the
boundary of an urbanized area with a
population more than 1 million in
population, then that MPO would
establish both 2-year and 4-year targets
for its metropolitan planning area.
In section 490.105(f)(5)(iv), FHWA
proposes that a nonattainment or
maintenance area within a metropolitan
planning area for any one of the
applicable criteria pollutants is not
located within the boundary of an
urbanized area with a population more
than 1 million in population, then that
MPO would not be required to establish
a 2-year target and would only establish
both 4-year targets for its metropolitan
planning area as required in section
490.105(f)(3).
In section 490.105(f)(5)(v) and
(f)(5)(vi), FHWA proposes the same
requirements be applied to MPOs for the
on-road mobile source emission target
as required for State DOTs in sections
490.105(e)(9)(v) and (e)(9)(vi). In section
490.105(f)(5)(vii), FHWA proposes
language for the MPOs that is similar to
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the State DOT provision in section
490.105(e)(9)(vii).
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(9),
both traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emission measures are
proposed to carry out the CMAQ
Program, but there are some differences
in how the targets for the measures are
to be implemented. Please refer to the
discussion for section 490.105(e)(9) for
a summary of differences.
As stated in the section 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 section 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, as specified in 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT adjusts a
target, as allowed under the proposed
sections 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 section
490.105(f)(3). In that case, the adjusted
State target could directly impact an
MPO’s investment decisionmaking.
Specifically, FHWA proposes in section
490.105(f)(7) that if a State DOT adjusts
its 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 section 490.105(f)(3),
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 its
own quantifiable 4-year target for the
metropolitan planning area. Since a
single, unified peak hour travel time
target and a single, unified traffic
congestion target would be established
for each applicable urbanized area as
discussed in section 490.105(e)(8),
FHWA expects that if either of these 4year targets need adjustment, all
involved MPO(s) and State DOT(s)
would collectively adjust target(s) in a
manner that is documented and
mutually agreed upon by all State DOTs
and MPOs.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
outside the control of the MPO. Thus,
FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(8)
that MPOs may adjust their established
4-year target in a manner that is
consistent with the process MPOs and
State DOTs agreed upon. 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 4year 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 section 490.105(f), 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 section 490.107(c).
The FHWA further proposes in
490.105(f)(8) 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. The FHWA
encourages State DOTs to work with
multiple MPOs to mutually 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 Section 490.107
Reporting on Performance Targets
Proposed reporting requirements for
measures identified in section
490.207(a) are discussed in section
490.213 of the first performance
management NPRM; and performance
target reporting requirements specific to
pavement condition measures in
sections 490.307(a)(1) through (c)(4) and
bridge condition measures in sections
490.407(c)(1) and (c)(2) are included in
the second performance management
NPRM. The discussions specific to those
measures will not be repeated in this
NPRM. Please see the docket for
proposed Subpart A in its entirety for
additional information.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e), State
DOTs are required to submit reports on
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23853
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.
The FHWA proposes in section
490.107 for State DOT performance
reporting to be used:
• In the determination of significant
progress toward achieving NHPP and
NHFP 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 section 490.107, FHWA proposes
the minimum requirements that State
DOTs and MPOs would follow to report
targets for all measures identified in
section 490.105(c), which include the
proposed measures in both this
performance management NPRM and
the second performance management
NPRM. In section 490.107(a), FHWA
proposes that all performance targets
described in section 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 section 490.213. In the
first performance measure rulemaking,
published as a final rule on March 15,
2016, FHWA requires a 1 calendar year
period as the basis for measurement,
target establishment, and reporting. As
discussed in section 490.101 of that
Rule, a 1-year period is required 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 section
490.107(a)(3). The FHWA intends to
provide additional guidance regarding
the template which will include fields
to capture all of the information that
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23854
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
would be required to be reported under
this rulemaking.
The FHWA anticipates the final rule
for the pavement and bridge condition
performance measures (proposed in the
second performance management
NPRM) to be effective no later than
October 1, 2016, and anticipates that the
final rule for this proposal to be
effective no later than October 1, 2017.
However, 23 U.S.C. 150(e) requires State
DOTs to submit reports on performance
targets and progress in achieving
established targets to FHWA not later
than October 1, 2016. To meet the
statutory deadlines for the first State
DOT performance report due in 2016,
FHWA proposes the minimum reporting
requirements that would be followed by
State DOTs in section 490.107(a)(4). The
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
submit an Initial State Performance
Report to FHWA by October 1, 2016. In
that report, the State DOTs shall
include: (1) The condition/performance
of the NHS in the State derived only
from the available data in HPMS and
NBI; (2) the effectiveness of the
investment strategy document in the
State asset management plan for the
NHS; (3) progress toward targets the
State DOT would be required to
establish, which may only be a
description of how State DOTs would
coordinate with relevant MPOs and
other agencies in target selection for the
targets to be reported in the first State
Biennial Performance Report in 2018;
and (4) the ways in which the State is
addressing congestion at freight
bottlenecks.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1),
FHWA proposes in section 490.107(a)(5)
that State DOTs would establish targets
within 1 year of the effective date of
applicable rule and the State DOTs
would report the initial targets to
FHWA. In this section, FHWA proposes
that State DOTs submit their 2-year and
4-year targets for the first performance
period to FHWA either within 30 days
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
of target establishment by amending the
Initial State Performance Report or on
the due date of the first Baseline
Performance Report, whichever comes
first. The related NPRMs are being
published on individual schedules. This
creates the possibility that State DOTs
will be required to establish targets for
some performance measures, such as
those published in the second
performance management NPRM, well
before the first Baseline Performance
Report is due in October 2018. This
proposal ensures timely reporting of
targets, and allows FHWA to begin to
develop a national story around targets
sooner.
For consistent State DOT and FHWA
reporting, FHWA proposes a 4-year
performance period in section
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
section 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 for each measure
(see section 490.103). To ensure
consistency in reporting, FHWA
proposes that the reported baseline
condition/performance be derived from
the latest data collected through the
beginning date of a performance period,
the reported actual 2-year condition/
performance be derived from the latest
data collected through the midpoint of
a performance period, and the reported
actual 4-year condition/performance be
derived from the latest data collected
through the end date of a performance
period. This is illustrated in Figures 1
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and 2 in the discussion for section
490.105(e)(4).
The FHWA proposes in section
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.
Figures 3–5 illustrate the proposed
reporting timelines for the three types of
Biennial Performance Reports. The
proposed requirements identify three
distinct biennial performance 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 section
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.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23855
Discussion of Baseline Performance Period Reports
Full Performance
Mid
Baseline
Perfol'l'l'lance
Performance
Report for 1st
Period & Baseline
Performance
Performance
Performance
Period (Due Oct
Period Report for
1, 2020)
Performance
Report for 1st
Period Progress
for 1st
Performance Reports
Performance
Period Report
Biennial
Mid
Period Progress
2nd Performance
(State DOTs}
Period
1, 20111)
Period
Progress
Report for 2nd
Performance
Period(Due
Oct 1, 2024)
Period (Due Oct
1 2
Adjusted 4·year
targets for the
Target Reporting
Performance
Performance
Period (optional)
2-year and 4-year
targets for the
2nd Performance
Period
Adjusted 4·year
targets for the Znd
Performance
Period (opti ona I)
Significant
Significant
Progress
Progress
Determination for
Determination
Significant
Progress
Significant Progress
Determination for
2nd Period 2·year
1" Period 4·year
targets
targets
Performance Period for
non·emissions measures
Performance Period for
emissions measure
Data Collection
Performance for
for nonemissions
ante
Period
measures
Period
1st l'erfo rman ce
Period (Baseline
for 2nd Period)
Performance for
2nd Performance
Period
Period (Baseline for
3rd Period)
Data
Collection
emissions
measure
The FHWA proposes the requirement
for the Baseline Performance Period
Report in section 490.107(b)(1), where
the State DOTs would be required to
submit a Baseline Performance Period
Report no later than October 1st of the
first year of a performance period. The
FHWA is proposing that the first
performance period would begin on
January 1, 2018, for the measures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
identified in section 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(7) and would begin on
October 1, 2017, for emission measure
identified in section 490.105(c)(8).
Although the performance periods may
be different, the reporting for all the
measures in 490.105(c) would follow
the same schedule. State DOTs would
submit their Initial State Performance
Report no later than October 1, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subsequent Baseline Performance
Period Reports would be due no later
than October 1st every 4 years
thereafter.
The required contents for the Baseline
Performance Period Report are
discussed in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii).
The FHWA is proposing that the
Baseline Performance Period Report
would be the official source of the non-
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.002</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure 3 -Biennial Performance Reports - The Baseline Performance Period
Report
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23856
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
safety targets established by the State
DOT. To document the established
targets, FHWA proposes in section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A) that State DOTs
would report both their established 2year and 4-year targets for each measure
listed in section 490.105(c) for the
current performance period.
Additionally, if a State DOT elects to
establish additional targets as described
in sections 490.105(e)(3) and
490.105(e)(9)(iv), 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 along with the State
DOT’s discussion of the basis for each
target selection. 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
used by FHWA in carrying out the
requirements of 23 CFR 490, as they are
the targets established by the State DOT
to meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C.
150(d).
The FHWA proposes in section
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
beginning date of a performance period.
Because the first performance period for
the measures in section 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(7) is proposed to begin on
January 1, 2018, the baseline condition/
performance for this performance period
would be the most recent condition/
performance that represents actual
condition/performance through
December 31, 2017. As the first
performance period for the on-road
mobile source emissions measure in
section 490.105(c)(8) is proposed to
begin on October 1, 2017, State DOTs
would establish baseline performance of
a 4-year cumulative emissions reduction
resulting from CMAQ projects from
fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2017
(ending September 30, 2017) in the
CMAQ Public Access System, as
described in section 490.809. The
CMAQ Public Access System contains
20 years of past data. Since all past data
in the CMAQ Public Access System may
not have the necessary values for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
proposed measure, FHWA believes that
State DOTs should revisit the data for
CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2014
through fiscal year 2017 to improve
baseline performance establishment
which would ultimately help the State
DOTs in their target establishment.
Should a State DOT elect to establish
additional targets, as described in
sections 490.105(e)(3) and
490.105(e)(9)(iv), the State DOT would
report baseline condition/performance
that represent the applicable areas in
addition to the statewide baseline
condition/performance. As an example,
for the Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times
measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)),
would be a percentage of directional
mainline highways on the Interstate
System providing for Reliable Travel
Times (sections 490.503(a)(1) and
490.513(b)) expressed in one tenth of a
percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a
baseline condition/performance for this
measure would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the
Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times expressed in one tenth of
a percent. As a hypothetical example, a
baseline condition/performance would
be 37.7 percent for the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times.
The FHWA proposes in section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs
would be required to also include a
discussion in the Baseline Performance
Period Report, of how the established 2year 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 section
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 and establish any
additional targets for urbanized and
non-urbanized areas. Similarly, in
section 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. Additionally,
State DOTs would be required to report
the latest Decennial population data for
all urbanized areas in accordance with
HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA would
use this information in determining
measure applicability and making its
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
The FHWA proposes in section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F) that, in each
Baseline Performance Period Report,
State DOTs would include discussions
on the ways in which State DOTs are
addressing congestion at freight
bottlenecks, including those identified
in the National Freight Strategic Plan.
This content is required as part of the
report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(4). To
meet this requirement for State DOTs to
address congestion at freight bottlenecks
within the State, FHWA proposes that
State DOTs would describe their
activities to improve freight bottlenecks.
For the purpose of this report only,
freight bottlenecks would be defined as
the segments of the Interstate System
not meeting thresholds for freight
reliability and congestion (section
490.613) and any other locations the
State wishes to identify as bottlenecks
based on its own freight plans or related
documents if applicable. Further, the
State DOT should reference its activities
in other freight planning and programs
that focus on improving freight
bottlenecks, including: Comprehensive
freight improvement efforts of Statewide
Freight Planning or MPO freight plans;
the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) and TIP;
regional or corridor level efforts; other
related planning efforts; and operational
and capital activities targeted to
improve freight movement on the
Interstate. The FHWA understands the
multifaceted and multimodal nature of
a freight bottleneck and that many State
DOTs will likely define bottlenecks
beyond the definition for this Part. The
FHWA believes that due to the diversity
in characteristics of bottlenecks and a
lack of a universal definition or
approach to measurement, this reporting
on freight bottlenecks should be focused
at a minimum on the performance
measures, as proposed in section
490.607 and how those measures and
the State DOT’s associated targets might
be impacted by other freight efforts
currently underway, such as planning or
programming. The FHWA encourages
State DOTs to consider multimodal
freight performance in transportation
planning and programming efforts
taking place beyond this rule. Upon
development of the National Strategic
Freight Plan, a State DOT shall
specifically include its activities for
addressing freight bottlenecks as part of
that Plan in this report. The FHWA is
seeking comment on this approach.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23857
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The FHWA proposes in section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(G) that State DOTs,
where applicable, would be required to
describe the boundaries of EPA’s
designation of nonattainment or
maintenance areas under the NAAQS in
40 CFR part 81 at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA. Please refer to
the discussion in section 490.103(c) for
more information.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3),
MPOs serving a TMA with a population
over 1 million representing
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for O3, CO or PM NAAQS are required
to submit CMAQ Performance Plan,
required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a
part in the State Biennial Performance
Report. In section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H),
the FHWA proposes that State DOTs
would report relevant MPOs’ CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
Discussion of Mid Performance Period Report
Full Performance
Mid
Baseline
Performance
Performance
Report for 1st
Period & Baseline
Performance
Performance
Performance
Period (Due Oct
Period (Due Oct
Period Report for
1, 2018)
(State DOTs)
Period Progress
for 1st
Performance Reports
Performance
Report for 1st
Period Report
Biennial
1, 1020)
2nd Performance
Period {Due Oct
2-year and 4-year
targl:!ts for the 1st
Performance
Period
Target Reporting
Mid
Period Progress
AdJuSI: ed 4-yea r
for the
Perfu.rmance
Period {optional)
2-year and 4-year
targets for the
2nd Performance
Period
Performance
Period
Progress
Report for 2nd
Performance
Period{Due
Oct 1, 2024)
Adjusted 4-year
targets for the 2nd
Performance
Period (optional)
Significant
Significant Progress
Progress
Determination
D~:b:rmination
for
2nd Period 2-year
targets
Performance Period for
non-emissions measures
Performance Period for
emissions measure
Data Collection
Performance for
2nd Performance
for nonemissions
a nee
Period
Period (Baseline
for 2nd Period)
Period
Period (Baseline for
3rd Period)
Data
Collection
emissions
measure
Baseline for 1"
Performance
Period
Figure 4 -Biennial Performance Reports - The Mid Performance Period Report
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.003</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
measures
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23858
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The FHWA proposes the requirement
for the Mid Performance Period Progress
Report in section 490.107(b)(2). In
section 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 1st of the third year of a
performance period. The FHWA is
proposing that the first performance
period would begin on January 1, 2018,
for the measures identified in section
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) and would
begin on October 1, 2017, for the
emission measure identified in section
490.105(c)(8). Although the performance
periods may be different, the reporting
for all the measures in section
490.105(c) would follow the same
schedule. State DOTs would submit
their first Mid Performance Period
Progress Report no later than October 1,
2020, and subsequent Mid Performance
Period Progress Reports would be due
no later than October 1st every 4 years
thereafter.
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA
proposes the required contents for the
Mid Performance Period Progress
Report. In section 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 4, FHWA proposes that the 2year 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
on January 1, 2018, for the measures
identified in section 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(7), 2-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 defined in section 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, Percent of the Interstate
System providing for Reliable Travel
Times measure (in section
490.507(a)(1)), would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the
Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times (sections 490.503(a)(1) and
490.513(b)) expressed in one tenth of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a
target for this measure would be a
percentage of directional mainline
highways on the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times
expressed in one tenth of a percent. As
a hypothetical example, a 2-year target
for that measure would be 39.5 percent.
The 2-year condition/performance
would be 39.2 percent. For the on-road
mobile emissions measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8), 2-year condition/
performance for this performance period
would be the estimated cumulative
emissions reduction resulting from
CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2018
through fiscal year 2019 in the CMAQ
Public Access System, as described in
section 490.809.
The FHWA proposes in section
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
2020, a State would compare the actual
condition/performance through 2019
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 to determine significant progress,
as described in section 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, for
the Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times
measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)), a
hypothetical 2-year target for this
measure is 39.5 percent (in section
490.105(e)). If 2-year condition/
performance for this measure is 39.2
percent as discussed above, the State
DOT would discuss why this target was
not achieved in its Mid Performance
Period Progress Report.
The FHWA proposes in sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) that, in each
Mid Performance Period Progress
Report, State DOTs would include
discussions on the effectiveness of the
investment strategy documented in the
State asset management plan for the
NHS and the ways in which State DOTs
are addressing congestion at freight
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
bottlenecks, including those identified
in the National Freight Strategic Plan, as
described in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F).
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 and the
development of a final National Freight
Strategic Plan. The FHWA intends to
issue further guidance if the timing of
these two plans would impact a State
DOT’s ability to comply with the
requirements proposed in sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D).
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(6),
FHWA recognizes the challenges that
State DOTs may face in target
establishment and proposes to allow
State DOTs to adjust their 4-year targets.
The FHWA is proposing in section
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
2018, the State DOT would only be able
to adjust the 4-year target in its Mid
Performance Period Progress Report in
2020. 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. The FHWA intends to publish the
State DOT established targets on a
publicly available Web site with the
initial target basis discussion. Any
targets adjusted at the mid-point will
also be reflected on the site.
The FAST Act introduced 23 U.S.C.
167(j), which requires FHWA to
determine if a State has met or made
significant progress toward meeting the
performance targets related to freight
movement. This was not part of MAP–
21. To meet the requirements of the
FAST Act, FHWA has incorporated
language throughout this NPRM
requiring the targets established for the
measures in section 490.105(c)(6) to be
included in the significant progress
process. The FHWA has called these the
NHFP targets. Section
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) is the first regulatory
reference to the NHFP.
In section 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 sections
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and the
NHFP measures in section 490.105(c)(6).
Additionally, State DOTs would provide
information to discuss how the actual 2year condition/performance levels
compare to targets. Although this
discussion would not be used to
determine significant progress for the
applicable measures, 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 and NHFP. For example,
the State DOT may use this discussion
to explain how it 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 NHFP, and how the State
DOT would deliver a program to make
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
significant progress for 4-year targets for
the NHPP and NHFP.
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA
is proposing that a State DOT would
report any factors that it could not have
foreseen and were outside of its control
that impacted its ability to make
significant progress for the 2-year targets
for the NHPP or NHFP. The FHWA
would use this discussion when
considering extenuating circumstances
discussed in section 490.109(e)(4).
In section 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 any
NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial
FHWA determination, then the State
DOT would include a description of the
actions it will undertake to achieve
those targets as required, respectively,
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) or 167(j).
For example, for the NHPP or the
NHFP, if FHWA determines that a State
DOT has not made significant progress
(as provided in section 490.109(e)(2)) for
either the 2-year or 4-year significant
progress determination, then the State
DOT would include a description of the
actions it would undertake to achieve its
conditions/performance with respect to
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23859
all related measures (section 490.109(f))
in its next Biennial Progress Report. If
FHWA determines that the State DOT
has achieved the target or made
significant progress, then the State DOT
does not need to include such
description in the next Biennial
Progress Report.
For the NHPP targets, the FAST Act
amended the language in MAP–21, and
changed the determination period from
being based on looking back over ‘‘two
consecutive determinations’’ (a 4-year
period) to a single biennial FHWA
determination which looks back over a
2-year period. This is a change from the
language presented in the second
NPRM, but it is required to be consistent
with the amended statute.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3),
MPOs serving a TMA with a population
over 1 million representing
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for O3, CO, or PM NAAQS are required
to submit CMAQ Performance Plan,
required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a
part in the State Biennial Performance
Report. In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(I),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
report relevant MPOs’ CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The FHWA proposes the requirement
for the Full Performance Period Progress
Report in section 490.107(b)(3). In
section 490.107(b)(3)(i), FHWA
proposes that State DOTs be required to
submit a Full Performance Period
Progress Report no later than October
1st of the first year following the
completion of a performance period.
The FHWA is proposing that the first
performance period would begin on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
January 1, 2018, for the measures
identified in section 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(7) and would begin on
October 1, 2017, for emission measure
identified in section 490.105(c)(8).
Although the performance periods may
be different, the reporting for all the
measures in section 490.105(c) would
follow the same schedule. State DOTs
would submit their first Full
Performance Period Progress Report no
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
later than October 1, 2022, and
subsequent Full Performance Period
Progress Reports would be due no later
than October 1st every 4 years
thereafter.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA
proposes the required contents for Full
Performance Period Progress Report.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would be
required to report 4-year condition/
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.004</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23860
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
performance in each Full Performance
Period Progress Report. As exhibited in
Figure 5, FHWA proposes that the 4year condition/performance be reported
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, 2018, for the measure
identified in section 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(7) and on October 1, 2017,
for the measure identified in section
490.105(c)(8), the 4-year condition/
performance for this performance period
would be the most recent conditions/
performance that represents actual
conditions/performance through
December 31, 2021 (illustrated in Figure
5). For the on-road mobile emissions
measure identified in section
490.105(c)(8), 4-year condition/
performance for this performance period
would be the 4-year cumulative
emissions reduction resulting from
CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2018
through fiscal year 2021 in the CMAQ
Public Access System, as described in
section 490.809. As indicated in Figure
5, the reported 4-year condition/
performance in a Full Performance
Period Progress Report would be the
baseline condition/performance for next
performance period for all measures.
As an example, for the Percent of the
Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times measure (in section
490.507(a)(1)), an hypothetical 4-year
target for this measure is 38.5 percent
(in section 490.105(e)). If 4-year
condition/performance for this measure
is 37.7 percent as discussed above, the
State DOT would discuss why this
target was not achieved in their Full
Performance Period Progress Report.
The FHWA proposes in section
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
2022, a State DOT would compare the
actual condition/performance through
the end of the performance period 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
As discussed in sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) for the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
FHWA also proposes in sections
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) that in each
Full Performance Period Progress
Report, State DOTs would include
discussions on the effectiveness of the
investment strategy documented in their
State asset management plans for the
NHS and the ways in which State DOTs
are addressing congestion at freight
bottlenecks, including those identified
in the National Freight Strategic Plan, as
described in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F).
Please refer to the discussion of sections
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F), 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C)
and (ii)(D) for more information.
In section 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 have been
established for the NHPP measures
specified in sections 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(5) and the NHFP measures
specified in section 490.105(c)(6).
Additionally, State DOTs would provide
information to discuss how the actual 4year condition/performance levels
compare with the applicable NHPP or
NHFP targets. Although this discussion
would not be used in the determination
of significant progress for the applicable
measures, 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 and NHFP. For example, the State
DOT may use this discussion to explain
how it effectively and efficiently
delivered a program designed to achieve
targets and how this may have resulted
in actual condition/performance
improvements for the NHPP and NHFP.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA
is proposing that a State DOT would
report any factors that it could not have
foreseen and were outside of its control
that impacted its ability to make
significant progress for the NHPP or
NHFP 4-year targets. This discussion
would be used by FHWA to consider the
application of the proposed
consideration of extenuating
circumstances discussed in section
490.109(e)(4).
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA
proposes that if FHWA determines that
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23861
a State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement of any
NHPP or NHFP targets, then the State
DOT would include a description of the
actions it would undertake to achieve
conditions/performances with respect to
all related NHPP or NHFP measures
within the measure group, as described
in section 490.109(f).
For example, for the NHPP or NHFP,
if FHWA determines that a State DOT
has not made significant progress at
either the 2-year or 4-year significant
progress determination, then the State
DOT would include a description of the
actions it would undertake to achieve its
targets with respect to all related
measures in the next Biennial Progress
Report. If FHWA determines that the
State DOT has achieved or made
significant progress, then the State DOT
does not need to include this
description in the next Biennial
Progress Report.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3),
MPOs serving a TMA with a population
over one million representing
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for O3, CO, or PM NAAQS are required
to submit CMAQ Performance Plan,
required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a
part in the State Biennial Performance
Report. In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(H),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
report relevant MPOs’ CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
The FHWA proposes, in section
490.107(c), that MPOs document the
manner in which they report their
established targets. The MPOs would
report their established targets to the
relevant State DOTs in a manner that is
agreed upon by both parties and
documented. The FHWA proposes in
section 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. In section 490.107(c)(2), 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. In sections 490.105(e)(3)
and 490.105(d)(3), FHWA discusses
how an urbanized area boundary or
NHS limit changes during a
performance period may lead to changes
in the measures reported for an area/
network and could impact how an
established target relates to actual
measured performance. The FHWA
anticipates that changes in the MPA
boundary could also impact how an
established target relates to actual
measured performance. Thus, FHWA
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23862
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
seeks comment on whether the
description of the MPA in place when
establishing targets should be included
in the system performance report and
apply to the entire performance period.
As required in 23 U.S.C. 149(l), each
MPO serving a TMA with a population
over 1 million representing
nonattainment and maintenance areas
must develop a performance plan,
updated biennially, to report baseline
levels and the progress toward
achievement of the targets for the
CMAQ traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions measures. The
FHWA proposes that the CMAQ
performance plan is not required when
the MPO does not serve a TMA with a
population over 1 million; the MPO is
attainment for O3, CO and PM NAAQS;
or the MPO’s nonattainment or
maintenance area for O3, CO, or PM
NAAQS is outside the urbanized area
boundary of the TMA with a population
over one million. Based on the data
available,82 FHWA has prepared a list 83
of the MPOs who might be subject to the
CMAQ performance plan and included
this list in the docket.
To encourage close coordination of
the State DOT and MPOs in
implementing the performance
requirements and to streamline the
reporting requirements, FHWA proposes
in section 490.107(c)(3) that the MPOs
meet the reporting requirements of the
CMAQ performance plan in 23 U.S.C.
149(l) if the MPO’s CMAQ performance
plan is submitted as part of the State
Biennial Performance Report as required
under section 490.107(b). The CMAQ
performance plan must be clearly
documented in a separate section, as an
attachment, of the State Biennial
Performance Report. The FHWA is
soliciting comments on other ways that
will help further streamline the
reporting requirements. Some options
may include:
1. The MPOs could submit their
CMAQ performance plans to FHWA
separately from the State Biennial
Performance Report as discussed in
section 490.107(b). In this case, the State
DOTs and the MPOs should coordinate
to ensure that the MPOs’ data are
82 Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA
HEPGIS (Accessed on 5/1/2015): https://
hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/ViewMap.aspx?
map=MPO+Boundaries√MPO+Boundary#. The
nonattainment/maintenance status of the MPOs
areas was verified on 5/1/2015 based on EPA’s
Green Book (updated on April 14, 2015): https://
www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_
download.html. Population Data for Urbanized
Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://
www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural2010.html.
83 Document ‘‘CMAQ Measure States and
MPOs.pdf’’ in the docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
reflected in the State report in a
consistent manner.
2. The MPOs could submit their
performance information to the State
DOTs to be included in the State
Biennial Performance Report. In this
case, the State DOTs would be
responsible to ensure the CMAQ
performance plan requirements are met.
The FHWA requests comments on
other possible options that provide a
streamlined approach to meet the
performance requirements as discussed
above.
The FHWA proposes that, similar to
the State DOT Biennial Performance
Reports, an MPO would have three
distinct performance reports (Baseline
Performance Period, Mid Performance
Period Progress, and Full Performance
Period Progress). These distinct reports
would contain different content, but
would align with target establishment
and other State DOT performance
reporting requirements.
As part of the CMAQ performance
plan submitted with the State DOT’s
Baseline Performance Period Report, the
MPO would include baseline condition/
performance for each applicable
measure. This could result in several
different baseline condition/
performances: One for each urbanized
area’s traffic congestion measure and up
to five 84 for the on-road mobile source
emission measure. The FHWA intends
that ‘‘baseline level,’’ as used in 23
U.S.C. 149(l), has the same meaning as
‘‘baseline condition/performance’’ as
used in this section. Interpreting these
phrases as having the same meaning
will help ensure that State DOTs and
MPOs are reporting consistent baseline
condition/performance information. For
the traffic congestion measure, the
baseline condition/performance would
be the same as that reported by the State
DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B).
The report would also include the 2year and 4-year targets for these
measures for the performance period.
The establishment of targets is required
in section 490.105(f). An MPO would
use the same geographic area for both
reporting its baseline condition/
performance and establishing targets.
For the traffic congestion measure, as
described in section 490.105(f)(5), 2year and 4-year targets would be
identical to the targets reported by the
relevant State DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). As required by 23
U.S.C. 149(l)(1)(C), the report would
describe projects identified for CMAQ
84 Measure for each of the applicable criteria
pollutants and precursors (VOC, NOX, CO, PM2.5
and/or PM10).
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
funding and how such projects would
contribute to achieving the performance
targets for the traffic congestion and onroad mobile source emissions measures.
The FHWA proposes that the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
State DOT’s Mid Performance Period
Progress Report would include the
actual 2-year condition/performance
derived from the latest measured
condition/performance through the
midpoint of the performance period for
an MPO-reported traffic congestion
target and the estimated cumulative
emissions reduction resulting from
CMAQ projects in the CMAQ Public
Access System for each MPO-reported
on-road mobile source emissions target.
For the traffic congestion measure, the
actual 2-year condition/performance
would be identical to the 2-year
condition/performance reported by the
relevant State DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). For the on-road
mobile source emissions measure, an
MPO should use the same process the
State DOT uses for determining the
actual condition/performance, which is
described in relation to section
490.107(b)(2)(ii). As required by 23
U.S.C. 149(l)(2), MPOs would assess the
progress of the projects identified in the
CMAQ performance plan submitted
with the Baseline Performance Period
Report toward achieving the 2-year
targets for traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions measures.
When doing this assessment, the MPO
would compare the actual 2-year
condition/performance with the 2-year
target and document any reasons for
differences between these two values.
If an MPO adjusts its 4-year target, the
MPO would report that adjusted target,
as provided in section 490.105(f)(7) and
(f)(8). In addition, an MPO would
update its description of projects
identified for CMAQ funding and how
those updates would contribute to
achieving the performance targets for
these measures. If an MPO has not
adjusted its targets or does not have any
changes to its description of projects, it
may comply with this proposed
requirement by making a statement to
that effect.
The FHWA proposes the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
State DOT’s Full Performance Period
Progress Report would include the
actual 4-year condition/performance
derived from the latest measured
condition/performance through the end
of the performance period for each
MPO-reported traffic congestion and
estimated cumulative emissions
reductions resulting from CMAQ
projects in the CMAQ Public Access
System for each MPO reported on-road
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mobile source emissions target. For the
traffic congestion measure, the actual 4year condition/performance would be
identical to the 4-year condition/
performance reported by the relevant
State DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A). For the on-road
mobile source emissions measure, an
MPO should use the same process used
by the State DOT for determining the
actual 4-year condition/performance,
which is described in relation to section
490.107(b)(3)(ii). As required by 23
U.S.C. 149(l)(2), MPOs would assess the
progress of the projects identified in the
CMAQ performance plan submitted
with the Baseline Performance Period
Report and any updates to that
description identified in the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
Mid Performance Period Progress Report
toward achieving the 4-year targets for
these measures. When doing this
assessment, the MPO would compare
the actual 4-year condition/performance
with the 4-year target and document any
reasons for differences between these
two values.
The FHWA has proposed that MPOs
submit three distinct CMAQ
performance plans with the State DOT’s
biennial performance reports (Baseline
Performance Period, Mid Performance
Period Progress, and Full Performance
Period Progress). Because these plans
would be required for consecutive 4year performance periods, the
information provided in the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
State DOT’s Full Performance Period
Report would be provided at the same
time and may include some of the same
information as the CMAQ performance
plan submitted with the State DOT’s
Baseline Performance Period Report for
the next performance period. As FHWA
expects that State DOTs would provide
all of the required baseline and progress
reporting information at one time, and
the MPO CMAQ performance plan
would be submitted in a similar fashion.
The proposed regulations identify three
distinct plans to clarify the purpose and
timing of information that would be
required to be reported every 2 years.
The FHWA intends to issue guidance to
assist MPOs in developing and
submitting these biennial plans.
The FHWA also seeks comments on
other issues or problems State DOTs and
MPOs might anticipate in meeting the
reporting requirements of 23 U.S.C.
149(l) and 150(e) for the performance
measures related to the CMAQ program
and ideas for resolving any anticipated
issues or problems.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Discussion of Section 490.109
Assessing Significant Progress Toward
Achieving the Performance Targets for
the National Highway Performance
Program and National Highway Freight
Program
Significant progress determinations
for measures identified in section
490.207(a) are discussed in section
490.211 of the first performance
measure rulemaking, published as a
final rule March 15, 2016; and
significant progress determination
specific to pavement condition
measures in sections 490.307(a)(1)
through (c)(4) and bridge condition
measures in sections 490.407(c)(1) and
(c)(2) are included in the second
performance measure NPRM. The
discussions specific to these measures
will not be repeated in this NPRM.
Please see the docket for Subpart A in
its entirety for additional information.
In section 490.109, FHWA proposes
the method by which FHWA would
determine if a State DOT has achieved
or is making significant progress toward
its performance targets in the NHPP, as
required by 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), and
NHFP, as required 23 U.S.C. 167(j). This
determination would involve the
measures identified in section
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5), which
include the proposed measures in both
this performance management NPRM
and the second performance
management NPRM, and section
490.105(c)(6). 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 (RIN
2125–AF52) for discussion on the
review of MPO performance progress.
The FHWA recognizes that there may
be factors outside of a State DOT’s
control that could impact its ability to
achieve a target. The FHWA considered
these factors in its evaluation of
different approaches to implement this
provision. A number 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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23863
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 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 85 raised a
number of concerns regarding progress
assessment, including:
• 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 (targets for the measures
identified in section 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(5)) and each NHFP (targets
for the measures identified in section
490.105(c)(6)), 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 the actual condition/
85 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%20TargetSetting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23864
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
performance is better than the State
DOT identified baseline of condition/
performance. The FHWA believes that
any improvement over the baseline,
which represents a 0.1 percent
improvement, should be viewed as
significant progress considering the
fiscal challenges and financial
uncertainties many State DOTs are faced
with today. Although a change of 0.1
percent may appear insignificant, this
degree of improvement to a highway
network is difficult to achieve. In many
State DOTs this level of change would
require improvements to hundreds, if
not thousands, of lane-miles of highway
network. The FHWA reviewed the
extent to which State DOTs have been
able to actually change system
conditions/performance of their
highway networks in recent years to
validate this view of significant
progress. This review supports FHWA’s
belief that any improvement should be
considered significant, as many State
DOTs have seen minimal or no
improvements in the condition/
performance of their highway 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,
through a transparent and public
process, would want to establish or
adjust targets that strive to improve the
overall performance of the NHS and
freight movement. For this reason,
FHWA did not want to propose 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
uncertainties 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 condition/performance of the
Interstate and non-Interstate System
NHS, and freight movement.
The FHWA is proposing a three-step
process to determine if a State DOT has
made significant progress toward the
achievement of its NHPP and NHFP
targets. The FHWA would use this
process to make a significant progress
determination for the NHPP and NHFP
each time the State DOT submits its Mid
Performance Period Progress Report and
its Full Performance Period Progress
Report. This process is summarized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
below and discussed in more detail for
each of the proposed regulations.
• Step 1: Reporting Progress in the
Biennial Performance Reports—The
State DOT would evaluate and report
the progress it has made both toward the
achievement of each individual target
and for all related targets collectively
established for the NHPP and NHFP
measures (measures identified in
section 490.105(c)(1) through(c)(5) and
490.105(c)(6)). This evaluation would be
documented in the discussion of
progress achieved since the most recent
report. The State DOT would document
in its Biennial Performance Reports any
extenuating circumstances outside its
control that may have impacted its
ability to achieve progress on any of the
targets.
• Step 2: Consideration of
Extenuating Circumstances—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 in the progress assessment.
A State DOT would provide any
additional information to FHWA, upon
request, if the report is incomplete.
• Step 3: Evaluation of Actual
Condition/Performance—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
sections 490.105(c)(1) and (c)(2);
Æ Data contained in the NBI for
targets established for bridge condition
measures, as specified in section
490.105(c)(3);
Æ Data contained within the HPMS
for targets established for system
performance measures, as specified in
sections 490.105(c)(4) and (c)(5);
Æ Data contained within the HPMS
for targets established for Freight
performance measures, as specified in
sections 490.105(c)(6);
Æ Data to define the urbanized area
boundary and NHS limits as
documented in the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report; and
Æ Population data, as defined by the
most recent U.S. Decennial Census that
was available when targets were first
reported by the State DOT in their
Baseline Performance Period Report.
The FHWA would use these biennial
determinations to assess if the State
DOT is in compliance with the NHPP 86
and NHFP 87 performance achievement
provisions. For the NHPP and NHFP,
86 23
87 23
PO 00000
U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
U.S.C. 167(j).
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the State DOTs are required to achieve
or make significant progress toward
their targets every biennial reporting
period (every 2 years), and are to take
additional reporting actions if FHWA
determines significant progress is not
made. The FHWA plans to issue
guidance, following the publication of
the Final Rule, establishing when the
determination notification to the State
DOTs will be made.
For the NHPP, the requirement for
State DOTs to take the additional
reporting actions would be based on
each FHWA biennial determination.
This is a change from the second NPRM,
which proposed that the requirement for
a State DOT to take the additional
reporting actions would be based on two
consecutive FHWA biennial
determinations. As discussed in
previous sections, the enactment of
FAST Act introduced the significant
progress determination requirements for
the NHFP and removed the requirement
that two consecutive reports (4 year
period) be used in determining if a State
DOT would be required to take
additional reporting actions when the
State DOT has made significant progress
toward its NHPP targets. Thus, in this
NPRM, the language has been changed
to reflect the statutory language in FAST
Act. The FHWA proposes, in this
NPRM, that FHWA would determine
whether or not a State DOT has
achieved or make significant progress
toward its NHPP and NHFP targets
every biennial reporting period, and the
determination on whether or not a State
DOT would take additional reporting
actions based on each of FHWA biennial
determination.
In section 490.109(a), FHWA proposes
that it would determine whether a State
DOT has achieved or has made
significant progress toward achieving
each of the State DOT’s targets for each
of the NHPP and NHFP measures
separately.
The FHWA proposes in section
490.109(b) that FHWA would determine
whether a State DOT has or has not
made significant progress for NHPP and
NHFP targets at the midpoint and the
end of each performance period.
In section 490.109(c), FHWA proposes
that FHWA would determine significant
progress toward the achievement of a
State DOT’s NHPP and NHFP targets
after the State 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 section 490.107(b), would
follow the proposed schedule illustrated
in Figures 4 and 5. Following this
proposed frequency, the FHWA would
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
make a significant progress
determination for the NHPP and NHFP
and assess compliance with the NHPP
and NHFP performance achievement
provisions every 2 years.
The FAST Act introduced 23 U.S.C.
167(j), which says ‘‘If the Administrator
determines that a State has not met or
made significant progress toward
meeting the performance targets related
to freight movement of the State
established under section 150(d) by the
date that is 2 years after the date of the
establishment of the performance
targets, the State shall include in the
next report submitted under section
150(e) a description of the actions the
State will undertake to achieve the
targets, including . . .’’ The FHWA
interprets the 2-year period referenced
in 23 U.S.C. 167(j) as 2 years after the
start of the performance period, which
is consistent with 150(e) reporting
requirements and the reporting
regulations of this NPRM. This 2 year
period is the period of time the State
DOT has to establish targets, collect
data, and provide information to FHWA.
This interpretation allows FHWA to
determine if a State DOT has made
significant progress on its 2-year targets
following the submittal of its Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
and on its 4-year targets following the
submittal of its Full Performance Period
Progress Report.
The FHWA would notify all State
DOTs within a reasonable time of the
final determination and would advise
on any subsequent need to address
progress achievement in their next
biennial reports (see 450.109(f)). The
data reported to FHWA by the States
would be available to the public and
would be used to communicate a
national performance story. The FHWA
is developing a public Web site to share
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
performance related information. This
information would provide for greater
transparency for FHWA programs.
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 their NHPP and NHFP 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 making its NHPP and NHFP
significant progress determinations.
Thus, in section 490.109(d), FHWA
proposes to use specific data sources
that could be accessed by State DOTs
and others if they chose to replicate
FHWA’s determinations. The data in
these sources, specifically the HPMS,
would be provided by State DOTs as
proposed in Subparts E–F. To ensure a
repeatable process, in section
490.109(d), FHWA is proposing to
establish a specific date (August 15) to
extract data from the HPMS for the
measures proposed in this NPRM, as the
HPMS is often updated. This
‘‘extraction’’ date is considered the
earliest time data can be available in a
national data source. This proposed
‘‘extraction’’ date considers the time
State DOTs typically need to submit the
data to HPMS, to process raw data, and
to address missing or incorrect data that
may be identified as a result of quality
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23865
assessments conducted by the State
DOT and/or FHWA. The proposed
‘‘extraction’’ date is necessary for
FHWA to make significant progress
determinations in a timely manner. The
FHWA is proposing to extract metric
data from the HPMS on August 15 to
determine the actual performance of
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS for the Reliability and Peak Hour
Travel Time measures, and Freight
measures, as specified in sections
490.105(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6). This
date is needed to provide FHWA with
sufficient time to make a determination
of significant progress for NHPP and
NHFP targets.
In section 490.109(e), FHWA proposes
a process for the significant progress
determination for each individual NHPP
and NHFP target. In paragraph (e)(1),
FHWA proposes that FHWA would
assess how the target established by the
State DOT compares to the actual
condition/performance using the data/
information sources described in section
490.109(d). This process is generally
outlined in Step 3 of the 3-step process
described earlier. The FHWA proposes,
in section 490.109(e)(2), that FHWA
would determine that a State DOT has
made significant progress for each 2year or 4-year target if either: (1) The
actual condition/performance level is
better than the baseline condition/
performance reported in the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report; or
(2) 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
6.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The FHWA recognizes that State
DOTs have to consider their fiscal
situation 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 00062
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 7.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.005</GPH>
23866
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(7),
FHWA recognizes the data limitation
issues associated with the non-Interstate
NHS travel time reliability measure (in
section 490.507(a)(2)) prior to the start
of the first performance period.
Considering this limitation, FHWA
proposes in section 490.105(e)(7) 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 non-Interstate
NHS travel time reliability measure at
the beginning of the first performance
period. Consequently, FHWA proposes
in section 490.109(e)(3) that for the first
performance period only, progress
toward the achievement of 2-year targets
for non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure would not be subject
to FHWA determination under section
490.109(e)(2).
The FHWA proposes to accomplish
this by categorizing the 2-year targets for
the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure as ‘‘progress not
determined,’’ which would exclude
these targets from the FHWA
determination under section
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
baseline data available to them when
they first establish the 4-year target. For
the first performance period, FHWA
would determine significant progress
toward the achievement of a State
DOT’s non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure targets based on
HPMS data extracted on August15 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 non-Interstate NHS travel
time reliability measure in their first
Baseline Performance Period Report.
However, FHWA proposes that the
process established in this section apply
to all State DOTs in order to ensure
uniformity in the progress
determination process.
In section 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 or NHFP target(s), then that State
DOT would be deemed to not have
made significant progress for those
individual target(s).
In section 490.109(e)(5), if a State
DOT encounters extenuating
circumstances beyond its control, the
State DOT would document the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23867
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 its control when it
established targets at the beginning of
the performance period. If the
explanation is accepted by FHWA, then
the associated NHPP or NHFP target(s)
would be classified as ‘‘progress not
determined’’ and would not be subject
to the requirement under section
490.109(f). If the explanation is not
accepted by FHWA, then the State DOT
would be deemed to not have made
significant progress for the target.
Proposed extenuating circumstances are
listed in 490.109(e)(5). The list includes:
• Natural or man-made disasters
causing delay in NHPP or NHFP 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 and/or regulation directing
State DOTs to change metric and/or
measure calculation.
In section 490.109(f), pursuant to 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23 U.S.C. 167(j),
FHWA has proposed that if that if
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.006</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23868
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
FHWA determines that a State DOT has
not made significant progress for any
NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial
determination, then the State DOT
would include in its next Biennial
Performance Report a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to
improve conditions/performances with
respect to all related measures within
the measure group. The FHWA
proposed the related measures be
grouped as follows:
• Interstate System pavement
condition—both proposed measures
Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Good condition in
section 490.307(a)(1) and Percentage of
pavements of the Interstate System in
Poor condition in section 490.307(a)(2);
• Non-Interstate NHS pavement
condition—both proposed measures
Percentage of pavements of the nonInterstate NHS in Poor condition in
section 490.307(a)(3) and Percentage of
pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in
Good condition in section 490.307(a)(4);
• NHS bridge condition—both
measures Percentage of NHS bridges in
Good condition in section 490.407(c)(1)
and Percentage of NHS bridges in Poor
condition in section in 490.407(c)(2);
• NHS travel time reliability—both
measures Percent of the Interstate
System providing for Reliable Travel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Times in section 490.507(a)(1) and
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
providing for Reliable Travel Times in
section 490.507(a)(2); and
• Peak Hour Travel Time for an
Urbanized Area—both measures Percent
of the Interstate System where peak
hour travel times meet expectations in
section 490.507(b)(1) and Percent of the
non-Interstate NHS where peak hour
travel times meet expectations in
section 490.507(b)(2). Please note the
grouping for these measures is for each
urbanized area separately.
• Freight movement on the Interstate
System—both measures Percent of the
Interstate System Mileage providing for
Reliable Truck Travel Times in section
490.607(a), and Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage Uncongested in section
490.607(b).
As a general example of this proposed
approach, when a State DOT has not
made significant progress for any one of
the targets for NHS travel time
reliability measures (Interstate or nonInterstate NHS), then that State DOT
would, at a minimum, include in its
next Biennial Performance Report a
description of the actions the State DOT
will undertake to improve conditions
for NHS travel time reliability measures
(Interstate or non-Interstate NHS). As for
the peak hour travel time measures, if
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
significant progress is not made for
either urbanized area specific target
(Interstate or non-Interstate NHS), as
described in section 490.105(e)(8), for
an urbanized area, then the State DOT
would document the actions it will take
to improve both the Interstate and nonInterstate NHS peak hour travel times
such that both targets for the peak hour
travel time measures will be achieved
for that urbanized area.
States must provide description of the
actions they will undertake in the next
Biennial Performance Report. The
FHWA strongly encourages States to
add a description of their planned
actions to their most recent Biennial
Report within 6 months of the FHWA
significant progress determination to
ensure actions to achieve targets are
taken in a timely manner, and to
improve progress toward making
significant progress for the applicable
targets.
Tables 10 and 11 illustrate this
proposed determination method for
both the NHPP and NHFP measures.
Table 10 includes the significant
progress determination results in 2021
for the midpoint of the 1st performance
period and the significant progress
determination in 2023 for the end of the
1st performance period.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23869
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Table 10- Example of NHPP and NHFP Significant Progress
Determinations in 2021 and 2023
il.l
j$";1
~ ·5
===- ;
Significant Progress
Determination in 2021 for
the midpoint of the t•t
Performance Period
"f::il.l
il.l '-1
Measure
-;;;
.s
.;:
";!
il.l
2-year
target
=I':IJ:
~
=-
Percentage of
pavements in Good
Condition on nonInterstate NHSstatewide
Percentage of
pavements in Poor
Condition on nonInterstate NHSstatewide
Percentage ofNHS
bridges in Good
Conditionstatewide
40.0%
;...
Q
~=e:=
=
1'::1
=-=
=
ei ~
1'::1.:::1
il.l
UQ
•'t:
1'::1
4-year
target
...... 1'::1
'-1-
QJ
~=I
=
40.0%
ei
u ~
Q
~=I
QJ
~
s
Progress
not
determined
=
1'::1
;.."f::
1'::1 QJ
~';I
00
NIA
;;: ~
";!
=.:::~
5!6 - ';I
-
Q
$1a
N
il.l
:I .::I
The Percentage of
pavements in Good
Condition on
Interstate System statewide
The Percentage of
pavements in Poor
Condition on
Interstate Systemstatewide
il.l ....
Q
";!
=
....
itc•
:-a
.....
.;: ~
of
==u;..,
=il.l
=
~
Significant Progress
Determination in 2023
for the end of the 1st
Performance Period
5J
37.7%
I':! itc•
il.l
.s
r.;J';t
5:
Q
-=~";!
·c: ~ =
=-=Q
Q
QJ
-
No
88
7.0%
NIA
Progress
not
determined
5.2%
6.0%
Yes by
achieving
the 2-year
target
33.3%
33.4%
2.9%
Yes by
achieving
the 2-year
target
2.3%
2.2%
34.9%
Yes by
achieving
the 2-year
target
34.0%
33.4%
7.0%
89
35.0%
3.8%
35.0%
34.4%
2.9%
34.5%
34.4%
Measure
Group
';Is..=
il.l
38.5%
il.l
Yes by
actual
being
better
than the
baseline
Yes by
achievin
g the 4year
target
Yes by
achievin
g the 4year
target
No
Interstate
System
pavement
condition
Non-Interstate
NHS pavement
condition
NHS Bridge
condition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.032</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
88 The FHWA proposes to categorizing the 2-year targets for the Interstate pavement condition measure as
"progress not determined" for the first performance period. Please see sections 490.105(e)(7) and
490.109(e)(3) in the Second Performance Measure NPRM.
891bid
23870
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Significant Progress
Determination in 2021 for
the midpoint of the 1•t
Performance Period
ilJ
~"CC
~
~
.s
b
=~
't:~
ilJ
=
~<:!I
Measure
=
....
=
.1:1
ilJ
=~
=';!
u .....
ilJ
....
1:i
-
2-year
target
ilJ
e:s
=-e
=.::
~-
~
.....
U=
•'t:
4-year
target
8.9%
80.0%
81.0%
79.8%
87.5%
Yes by
achieving
the 2-year
target
ilJ
~
"CC ~
s~
u =
•'t:
<:!I ilJ
~~
~~
<:!I
oo e
9.3%
NIA
;1:1
..,.
I
....
N
10.0%
87.5%
=
....
=
=~
ilJ
I
=
ilJ
~~
.._
"" =
.. =
~=-
ilJ
~~
..
;.e
Percent of the
Interstate System
providing for
Reliable Travel
Times- statewide
Percent of the nonInterstate NHS
providing for
Reliable Travel
Times- statewide
Percent of the
Interstate System
where peak hour
travel times meet
expectations Urbanized Area A
Percent of the nonInterstate NHS
where peak hour
travel times meet
expectations Urbanized Area A
~·
ilJ ....
"CC ;
~ ~
e.;
:i.C:
Percentage ofNHS
bridges in Poor
Conditionstatewide
..,,...
.._
-= ~
;§~
....
"CC
Significant Progress
Determination in 2023
for the end of the 1st
Performance Period
Progress
not
determined
8.5%
80.0%
No
7.5%
80.2%
88.8%
89.5%
Yes by
actual better
than the
baseline
77.5%
75.5%
Yes by
actual better
than the
baseline
65.0%
90
75.0%
62.5%
76.3%
64.4%
75.1%
62.9%
60.0%
~;.;:: ,.,._
.... e.;
~ ilJ
..
.s
"CC
ooib
Measure
Group
"CCe=-
= "" .=
..
ilJ
""
.o~"CC
=~
·c e 5
~=-
Yes by
actual
being
better
than the
baseline
Yes by
achievin
g the 4year
target
Yes by
achievin
g the 4year
target
Yes by
actual
being
better
than the
baseline
NHS Reliable
Travel Times
Peak Hour
Travel Times
for Urbanized
Area A
No
The FHWA proposes to categorizing the 2-year targets for the non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability
measure as "progress not determined" for the first performance period. Please see sections 490.105(e)(l0)
and 490.109(e)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.033</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
90
In Table 10 above, the statewide target
for the measure Percent of the Interstate
System providing for Reliable Travel
Times did not make significant progress
for the 2-year target in FHWA’s biennial
determination in 2021. In this example,
the State DOT would include, at a
minimum, in its next Biennial
Performance Report (i.e. Full
Performance Period Progress Report in
2022) a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve its
targets with respect to both Percent of
the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel Times and the Percent of
the non-Interstate NHS providing for
Reliable Travel Times measures. The
FHWA strongly encourages State DOTs
to add a description of their planned
actions to their most recent Biennial
Reports (i.e. 2020 Mid Performance
Period Progress Reports) within 6
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
months of the FHWA significant
progress determination to ensure that
State DOTs take actions to achieve
targets in a timely manner and to
improve progress toward making
significant progress for the applicable
targets.
Also in Table 10, for the hypothetical
‘‘Urbanized Area A,’’ the urbanized area
target for the measure Percent of the
non-Interstate NHS where peak hour
travel times meet expectations did not
make significant progress for the 4-year
target in FHWA’s biennial
determination in 2023. In this example,
the State DOT would include in its next
Biennial Performance Report (i.e., Mid
Performance Period Progress Report in
2024) a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to improve its
performance with respect to both
‘‘Urbanized Area A’s relevant measures:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23871
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where
peak hour travel times meet
expectations and the Percent of the
Interstate System where peak hour
travel times meet expectations
measures. In addition, this hypothetical
State DOT did not make significant
progress for the statewide target for the
measure The Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage providing for Reliable
Truck Travel Times for the 4-year target
in FHWA’s determination in 2023. So
the State DOT would, at a minimum,
include in its next Biennial Performance
Report (i.e. Mid Performance Period
Progress Report in 2024) a description of
the actions the State DOT will
undertake to achieve targets with
respect to both the Percent of the
Interstate System Mileage providing for
Reliable Truck Travel Times and the
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.034</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23872
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Uncongested measures. The FHWA
strongly encourages State DOTs to add
a description of their planned actions to
their most recent Biennial Reports (i.e.
2022 Full Performance Period Progress
Reports) within 6 months of the FHWA
significant progress determination to
ensure that State DOTs take actions to
achieve targets in a timely manner and
to improve progress toward making
significant progress for the applicable
targets.
The FHWA believes that any one of
the targets would impact other targets in
the same measure group and 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 rather than isolated description
on a subset of the network. 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 section 490.109, FHWA
would make the significant progress
determination each time the State DOT
submits its Mid Performance Period
Progress Report and its Full
Performance Period Progress Report
(every 2 years). In section 490.109(f)(2),
FHWA proposes the consequences for
not making significant progress for the
NHFP measures in 490.105(c)(6).
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 167(j), if a State
DOT has not made significant progress
toward the achievement of NHFP targets
in a single FHWA biennial
determination, then the State DOT must
take the required actions in section
490.109(f)(2).
When a State DOT does not make
significant progress toward the
achievement of NHFP targets, it must
include a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve the
targets in its next Biennial Performance
Report. This discussion must include:
• A description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve
targets including an identification of
significant freight system trends, needs
and issues within the State;
• a description of the freight policies
and strategies that will guide the freightrelated transportation investments of the
State;
• an inventory of freight bottlenecks
with the State and a description of the
ways in which the State DOT is
allocating national highway freight
program funds to improve those
bottlenecks; and
• a description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to meet the
performance targets of the State.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
For the purpose of the requirements
in section 490.109(f)(2), the State DOT
may reference the Statewide Freight
Plan elements that identify freight
system trends, needs and issues, as well
as the freight policies and strategies in
the Plan to guide investment. Under
Section 150(e), State DOTs are already
responsible for reporting on ways in
which the State DOT is addressing
freight bottlenecks, which are defined as
those segments of the Interstates not
meeting the threshold levels for
congestion and average speed, as well as
any other bottlenecks the State DOT
wishes to include and anything that is
identified in the National Freight
Strategic Plan. The State DOT will
provide an inventory of those segments
as defined for section 150(e) and any
other locations the State DOT wishes to
reference as a bottleneck, as well as any
bottleneck referenced in the National
Freight Strategic Plan. Additionally, the
State DOT will describe how funding is
or will be allocated to improve freight
fluidity through bottlenecks, as well as
other actions to meet performance
targets of the Interstates in the State.
In section 490.109(f)(3), FHWA
proposes that State DOTs who fail to
make significant progress for either the
NHPP or NHFP should amend their
Biennial Performance Reports within 6
months of FHWA’s determination to
include the actions they will take to
achieve their targets. State DOTs are
required to include description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to
achieve targets in its next Biennial
Performance Reports to meet the
requirement in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), as
described in paragraph (f) of this
section. State DOTs are encouraged to
amend their most recent Biennial
Performance Reports to include this
information. As discussed in sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) and
490.107(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 and
NHFP measures in each of their
Biennial Performance Reports. The
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
their NHPP and NHFP targets and
expects State DOTs to be aware of their
progress prior to the time of each
Biennial Performance Report. As
described in the discussion of section
490.109(c), if a State DOT anticipates it
may not make significant progress, it is
encouraged to work with FHWA and
seek technical assistance during the
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 section
490.109(f)(3), FHWA proposes that the
State DOT should, within 6 months of
the significant progress determination,
amend its Biennial Performance Report
to document the information specified
in this section to ensure actions are
being taken to achieve targets.
Discussion of Section
490.111 Incorporation by Reference
In the second performance measure
NPRM, FHWA had proposed to
incorporate the proposed HPMS Field
Manual to codify the data requirements
for measures and to be consistent with
HPMS reporting requirements. In this
NPRM, FHWA proposes to extend that
incorporation to subparts E though G.
This would codify the data
requirements for these measures and
ensure consistency 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.
2. Subpart E: National Performance
Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway
System
In this section, FHWA describes the
proposed provisions in Subpart E,
which would establish performance
measures to assess the performance of
the NHS. The discussions of the
proposed requirements are organized as
follows:
• Section 490.501 discusses the
purpose of the subpart;
• Section 490.503 describes the
applicability of the subpart;
• Section 490.505 presents the
definitions;
• Section 490.507 discusses the
performance measures;
• Section 490.509 describes the data
requirements;
• Section 490.511 identifies how to
calculate performance metrics; and,
• Section 490.513 presents how to
calculate performance measures.
Relationship Between Data
Requirements, Calculation of Metrics,
and Calculation of Measures
The following provides a general
discussion of the relationship between
data requirements, metrics, and
measures. This relationship exists in
this Subpart as well as Subparts F—H.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The proposed approach to determining
individual measures includes data
requirements, methods to calculate
metrics, and methods to calculate
measures. These are presented in
sections 409.509, 490.511, and 409.513,
respectively, and in similar sections in
Subparts F—H. This proposed approach
is presented as follows:
• Data Requirements—Outlines the
data necessary to determine the required
set of metrics that would be used to
calculate the relevant measures. The
type of data to be collected, the methods
of data collection, and the extent and
frequency of collection are described
below and in the appropriate sections.
• Metrics—Describes the values that
would be calculated from the data
collected to support measure
development and how to report the
individual metrics.
• Measures—Provides the method to
calculate the measures using reported
metrics. State DOTs would use the
calculated measures to report baseline
condition or performance, establish
targets, and report on progress.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Discussion of Section 490.501 Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23
U.S.C. 150(c), to establish performance
measures for State DOTs to use to assess
the performance of the Interstate System
and of the non-Interstate NHS. In this
Subpart, FHWA proposes to establish
two measures (1) a travel time reliability
measure and (2) a peak hour travel time
measure.
Discussion of Section 490.503
Applicability
The FHWA is proposing to establish
a travel time reliability measure to apply
to the entire NHS, including Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS
elements. This measure would compare
the longest travel time or slowest speed
that occurs during a specified time
frame to a reference travel time or speed
for a transportation facility. A reliability
measure is an indication of the extra
time travelers must add to their trips in
order to have a high degree of certainty
that they will arrive at their destination
on time. The FHWA has defined travel
time reliability as the variability of
travel times. Reliability, in the eyes of
transportation system users, reflects
how consistent a travel time is on
portions of the NHS they are traveling
on. The larger the variability of travel
times is from day-to-day or hour-tohour, the more the user has to plan for
unexpectedly long travel times when
planning a trip. For instance, to make
sure a traveler arrives at the airport in
time for a flight, the traveler may allot
extra travel time to ensure that he/she
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
arrives in time in case of traffic incident,
bad weather, or road construction along
the way.
In more mathematical terms,
reliability looks at the longer (all
travelers) or longest (freight) travel times
faced by users on portions of the NHS
and compares these times to what is
typically experienced by the system
user (normal travel time). The larger the
difference in these travel times, the
worse the reliability is. In order to
improve reliability, State DOTs and
MPOs can implement operational and
other strategies that are specifically
designed make the system more reliable
and efficient.
The reliability measure proposed in
this NPRM would be reported as a
Percent of the Interstate System
providing reliable travel times and as
the Percent of the Non-Interstate NHS
providing reliable travel times. What
that really means is that the number of
miles on the Interstate or Non-Interstate
NHS that performed in a reliable
manner will be those miles where the
travel time during any time period of
the ‘‘daylight’’ hours (6 a.m. to 8 p.m.),
7 days a week, did not surpass the
normal travel time by more 50 percent.
The time periods during ‘‘daylight’’
hours include: 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.
weekdays, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays,
4 p.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, and weekend
days 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. If the longer travel
times exceed the normal travel time by
50 percent or more in any of these time
periods, then that section of road is
considered unreliable. The FHWA
experience and analysis led to the
proposed threshold of 1.5, which
reflects 50 percent longer travel times.
The FHWA seeks comments on whether
the 1.5 threshold is appropriate.
The calculations (or metrics) used to
report this measure report the travel
time reliability for every road segment
on the NHS, so it will be readily
apparent to State DOTs, MPOs, and the
general public where the NHS road
segments are that have a reliability
problem.
The FHWA also notes two important
refinements that strengthen travel time
reliability measures: (1) Some operating
agencies currently exclude the top 20
percent of longest travel times
throughout the year when developing
reliability-related measures because
these travel times typically are due to
extreme events that are beyond an
agency’s control and should not be
considered in the assessment of overall
system performance; and (2) the
reference travel time used in a reliability
measure often reflects travel time
associated with typical or average travel
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23873
speeds rather than the time associated
with free flow travel speeds.
By establishing targets for, and
reporting on this measure, State DOTs
and MPOs can better identify and
manage portions of the NHS where
users experience unreliable travel. Note
that FHWA is proposing a phase-in for
the establishment of targets for the nonInterstate NHS reliability measure
which is outlined in more detail under
the discussion for section 490.105(e)(7).
The FHWA is proposing to establish
a peak hour travel time measure to
apply to the NHS, including Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS, within
urbanized areas with a population over
1 million. By establishing targets for,
and reporting on this measure, State
DOTs and MPOs can better identify and
manage portions of the NHS in major
urbanized areas regardless of roadway
ownership. As proposed, FHWA expects
State DOTs and MPOs to use this
measure to report one outcome for each
of the applicable urbanized areas, even
in cases where the boundary of the
urbanized area intersects multiple States
and metropolitan planning areas.
Discussion of Section 490.505
Definitions
The FHWA is proposing to define
Desired Peak Period Travel Time as the
travel time during 3 morning peak hours
and the 3 evening peak hours, for each
reporting segment in urbanized areas
with a population over 1 million. State
DOTs shall coordinate with MPOs when
establishing the Desired Peak Period
Travel Time. A State DOT and MPO(s)
must use the same Desired Peak Period
Travel Time for a particular reporting
segment for the purposes of calculating
the metrics and measures. The Desired
Peak Period Travel Time should
represent a travel time that is consistent
with the intended plan and design of
the roadway as part of a complete
transportation system. The Desired Peak
Period Travel Time should be
developed in consultation with
operating agencies as well. An operating
agency is the agency or agencies that
actually operate the NHS roadways at
the most local level—this could be a
State DOT, MPO, or a local (city, town,
county) transportation agency.
Operating means applying operational
strategies in the day to day management
of the NHS roadways; strategies such as
posting travel times, sending out
freeway service patrols, altering signal
timing, and other items that could
improve the efficiency and reliability of
the NHS. The Desired Peak Period
Travel Time will be used to calculate
the Peak Hour measure which assesses
peak hour travel and should represent a
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23874
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
travel time that is consistent with the
intended plan and design of the
roadway as a part of a complete
transportation system.
The FHWA is proposing to define
Level of Travel Time Reliability
(LOTTR) as a comparison, expressed as
a ratio, of the 80th percentile travel time
of a reporting segment to the ‘‘normal’’
(50th percentile) travel time of a
reporting segment occurring throughout
a full calendar year. The 80th percentile
travel time reflects the longer travel
times to make a trip. The FHWA chose
the 80th percentile travel time because
it reflects the travel time where
operational strategies can make the most
impact on improving reliability. The
closer the 80th percentile travel time is
to the normal (50th percentile) travel
time, the better the reliability. The
FHWA seeks comments on this
methodology.
The FHWA is proposing to define
Normal Travel Time as the time
expected of Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS roadway users to travel
when the system is predominantly in
use. This time is proposed to be defined
as the 50th percentile travel time
occurring during this defined time
period. The 50th percentile relates to
the travel time that occurs in the middle
of a distribution of all travel times for
that travel time segment during that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
time period over a 1-year reporting
period. The FHWA selected the 50th
percentile as ‘‘normal travel’’ because it
represents the ‘‘normal’’ experiences of
travelers, rather than free flow travel
(which would typically be a lower
percentile, such as the 20th).
The FHWA is proposing to define
Peak Hour Travel Time as the hour that
contains the longest annual average
travel time during the peak period of
each non-holiday weekday. The peak
period is made up of the hours of the
day where the most people typically
commute, or the hours with the highest
amount of travel and include: Morning
(6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
a.m.; and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and
afternoon (4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 5:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.). This definition is needed as the
peak period would be used as the time
frame to develop the Peak Hour Travel
Time Ratio metric.
The FHWA is proposing to define
Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio as the
ratio between the longest peak hour
travel time and the Desired Peak Period
Travel Time. The closer the ratio is to
1.0, the more the actual peak hour travel
time reflects the desired peak period
travel time.
A Travel Time Cumulative Probability
Distribution is the approach State DOTs
and MPOs would use to determine
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percentiles needed for the travel time
reliability measure. A travel time
cumulative probability distribution is a
representation of all the travel times for
a road segment during a defined
reporting period (such as annually)
presented in a percentile ranked order
(see Table 11 below for an example). In
a graphic representation, as shown in
the lower graph in Figure 8, the x-axis
is the span of travel times (from shortest
to longest) and the y-axis is the
probability that a travel time will occur
at or slower than the travel time on the
x-axis. The upper graph in Figure 8
shows the travel time distribution, with
travel time on the x-axis and the number
of occurrences over a year on the y-axis.
In a graphic representation of a
cumulative probability distribution, the
variability in travel time is indicated by
the difference between the upper and
lower bounds of travel times on a given
travel time segment. For purposes of
this subpart, FHWA is proposing that
the upper and lower bounds be
identified as the 80th and 50th
percentile travel times respectively, as
illustrated in the lower graph in Figure
8. Travel time variability will reduce as
the difference between the upper and
lower bounds decreases or as the slope
of the cumulative probability
distribution curve increases.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
calculated by multiplying the total
TABLE 11—EXAMPLE TRAVEL TIME
DISTRIBUTION SHOWING PERCENT- number of travel time entries (20) by 0.5
resulting in ‘‘10.’’ So the tenth entry in
ILES—Continued
Example travel time distribution
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Travel time on
road segment
(seconds)
1 ..................
2 ..................
3 ..................
4 ..................
5 ..................
6 ..................
7 ..................
8 ..................
9 ..................
10 ................
11 ................
12 ................
13 ................
14 ................
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Percentiles
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
24
24
24
25
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Example travel time distribution
Rank
(shortest to
longest)
15
16
17
18
19
20
50th
Jkt 238001
Travel time on
road segment
(seconds)
................
................
................
................
................
................
27
27
29
33
40
44
Percentiles
80th
Please note that Table 11 is a simple
illustration of obtaining 50th and 80th
percentile values in a hypothetical
dataset with 20 travel time entries.
Within Table 11, the 50th percentile is
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the table would be the 50th percentile
travel time (23 seconds). The same
approach would be used with the 80th
percentile calculation: 20 travel time
entries × 0.8 = 16 so the 16th entry is
the 80th percentile travel time (27
seconds). Please see section 490.511 for
the specifics on the proposed metrics for
Travel Time Reliability and Peak Hour
Travel Time measures.
Discussion of Section 490.507
National Performance Management
Measures To Assess Performance of the
NHS
The FHWA is proposing in section
490.507 the establishment of four
measures to be used to assess the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.007</GPH>
TABLE 11—EXAMPLE TRAVEL TIME
DISTRIBUTION SHOWING PERCENTILES
Rank
(shortest to
longest)
23875
23876
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
performance of the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS. The first two
measures, which are focused on travel
time reliability, are applicable to all
NHS roadways in the State. The next
two measures, focused on peak hour
travel time, are applicable to all NHS
roadways within urbanized areas with a
population greater than 1 million. A
total of four measures are proposed:
Travel Time Reliability:
• Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable travel times
• Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
providing for Reliable travel times
Peak Hour Travel Time:
• Percent of the Interstate System in
large urbanized areas over 1 million in
population where peak hour travel
times meet expectations
• Percent of the non-Interstate NHS in
large urbanized areas over 1 million in
population where peak hour travel
times meet expectations.
State DOTs and MPOs would need to
establish targets for each of these
measures in accordance with section
490.105. These measures would be
calculated using the metrics proposed in
section 490.511 following the methods
proposed in section 490.513. The data to
support the measures are proposed in
section 490.509. The proposed travel
time reliability measures are designed to
be used by State DOTs and MPOs to
better understand the scope of reliability
problems on their highway systems and
to aid in identifying and implementing
strategies to improve system
performance. These measures are
intended to quantify the variability in
travel times experienced by users of the
highway system during hours of the day
when the predominant travel occurs on
the system. In general, the variability
captured by the proposed measures
would be a comparison of some of the
longer travel times experienced by users
compared to the amount of time users
typically expect their travel to take. This
comparison is an indication of how
reliable the highway system is, in terms
of how close actual travel times are to
what is expected by users.
Based on research the FHWA has
been doing for the past several years, it
believes that measuring the reliability of
travel times is a key to operating the
system more efficiently and reliably.91
91 Urban Congestion Report Program (https://
www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/ucr/
index.htm) Urban Congestion Trend and ‘‘Traffic
Congestion and Reliability’’ reports (https://
www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/
reliability_reports.htm) Travel Time Reliability
Overview Brochure and Guidance Document
(https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/
reliability_measures/index.htm) SHRP 2 Reliability
Program (esp. L03) Lessons Learned: Monitoring
Highway Congestion and Reliability Using
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
The FHWA also heard from a wide
range of stakeholders that travel time
reliability is important and should be
considered in this rulemaking. In
addition, many stakeholders expressed a
desire for a reliability measure to
capture longer than normal travel times
that would occur as a result of nonrecurring congestion, such as traffic
incidents, work zones, and special
events, which can be managed by
operating agencies through improved
traffic flow.
The proposed peak hour travel time
measures are designed to be used by
State DOTs and MPOs in urbanized
areas over 1 million in population to
better understand the scope of
undesirable congestion problems in
these large urbanized areas and to
identify and implement strategies to
improve system performance in these
areas. The measures are designed to
compare the longest average time of
travel experienced by users during peak
hours of the day to the travel time
desired for the system. The FHWA is
proposing in section 490.511(c)(1) that
the State DOT, in coordination with
MPOs, establish a desired time of travel
for sections of their highway system that
would be consistent with its intended
use and design. The proposed measure
would represent the percentage of the
applicable highway network where
actual travel times experienced during
peak hours meets the expectations of the
State DOT and MPOs. The FHWA is
proposing that peak hour travel times
that meet expectations would be those
conditions where actual travel times are
less than 50 percent greater than what
is desired for the highway.
The FHWA heard concerns from
many stakeholders regarding the
effectiveness of the establishment of
measures that would utilize an absolute
speed or travel time as a reference to
assess NHS performance. Many felt that
some portions of the new expanded
NHS highway network may be
functioning as intended even when
traffic is not flowing freely. Considering
this, FHWA is proposing an approach
where State DOTs, in coordination with
MPOs, would establish Desired Peak
Period Travel Times (as times that are
desired for the reporting segment) to be
used as the basis for the peak hour
measures. The Desired Peak Hour
Period Travel Time would reflect the
policies and management approach for
the urbanized areas. In addition, as
discussed in section 490.105(e)(8),
Archived Traffic Detector Data (https://
www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/lessons_
learned/index.htm) Monitoring Urban Freeways in
2003 (https://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/
tti.tamu.edu/documents/FHWA-HOP-05-018.pdf).
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FHWA is proposing that the peak hour
travel time measures would only be
applicable to NHS highways in
urbanized areas where populations are
greater than 1 million. For these
measures, one single target would be
established and reported for each
applicable urbanized area, where
collectively all State DOTs and MPOs in
these areas would need to agree on the
single target even where the urbanized
area intersects with multiple
jurisdictional boundaries. In total, based
on the 2010 U.S. Census, 42 targets
would be established nationwide using
this measure—one for each urbanized
area where populations are greater than
1 million. This approach is being
proposed so that State DOTs and MPOs
can work collectively to address
highway performance problems that
cross geographic boundaries and impact
the ability to improve system
performance throughout the urbanized
area.
Discussion of Section 490.509 Data
Requirements
The FHWA is proposing for State
DOTs and MPOs to use a travel time
data set that would meet the
requirements discussed in section
490.103 of this rulemaking to calculate
the metrics defined in section 490.511.
State DOTs and MPOs would use the
same travel time data set to assess the
performance of the directional mainline
highways of the NHS.
The FHWA is proposing State DOTs,
in coordination with MPOs, establish
and submit reporting segments as
discussed in section 490.103 of this
rulemaking. These reporting segments
would be used as the basis for
calculating and reporting metrics to the
FHWA and for State DOTs and MPOs to
calculate the measures proposed in this
subpart to assess Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS performance.
Reporting segments, as defined in
490.101, include one or more travel time
segments and must be contiguous so
that they cover the full extent of the
mainline highways of the NHS in the
State. The section 490.103 discussion
included in this rulemaking provides
more information on the proposal for
State DOTs to define and submit
reporting segments.
The FHWA is proposing in this
section that State DOTs would use the
posted speed limits of roadways to
estimate travel times for calculating the
Reliability metrics when the data is
missing or represented as a time of ‘‘0’’
or null in the Travel Time Data Set. The
proposed use of the posted speed data
is discussed in section 490.511. The
FHWA is not proposing that posted
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
speed limit data be reported as part of
this rulemaking.
The areas that would be applicable to
the Peak Hour Travel Time measure
would be identified when the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is
due to FHWA, based on the urbanized
area boundaries at that time. These areas
would continue to be applicable to the
measure (or conversely ‘‘not
applicable’’) for the duration of the
performance period regardless of
population changes that may occur
during the performance period. The
FHWA is proposing that the
applicability of the area be determined
using the most recent U.S. Decennial
Census reports on area populations. At
the time of this rulemaking, the Peak
Hour Travel Time measure would be
applicable to 42 urbanized areas in the
United States.
Discussion of Section 490.511
Calculation of System Performance
Metrics
The FHWA is proposing that two
metrics need to be calculated to develop
the Travel Time Reliability and Peak
Hour Travel Time measures proposed in
this rulemaking. They are the LOTTR
metric and the Peak Hour Travel Time
Ratio (PHTTR) metric. State DOTs
would be required to calculate these
metrics for all applicable roadway
segments for the applicable time periods
and report them to FHWA annually. The
proposed approach to calculate and
report these metrics is discussed in this
section.
As proposed in section 490.511(b), the
LOTTR metric would be calculated
annually by the State DOT for all
reporting segments on the NHS in the
State and used by FHWA, State DOTs,
and MPOs to assess the performance of
the system. The source of data would be
the Travel Time Data Set. The FHWA is
proposing that 5 minute travel time bins
that do not have data reported, or are
reported as null, or ‘‘0’’ in the Travel
Time Data Set would be replaced with
a calculation of the travel time needed
to fully traverse the travel time segment
while traveling at the posted speed
limit. This will ensure that a complete
set of travel times for the time periods
throughout the day needed to calculate
the LOTTR metric are utilized. The
FHWA believes that, in order to
calculate an accurate assessment of
92 Estimate based on multiplying 168 travel time
values per day by 366 days in the longest year that
could occur.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
reliability, travel times throughout the
day are necessary to capture the
variability of travel times on the system.
The FHWA is proposing that in cases
where travel times are not recorded,
typically due to a lack of probe sources,
it is assumed that vehicles are travelling
at the posted speed limit. The FHWA
believes that this assumption is valid
since a lack of vehicles present during
a 5 minute interval on a roadway
segment generally indicates
uncongested conditions. The FHWA
believes that as technologies improve
and the percentage of vehicles
containing equipment capable of
communicating with vehicle probes
increases, the potential for missing data
will decrease over time. Considering the
possibility for travel times to be missing
during different time intervals of the
day and the need for a complete data set
to accurately calculate the reliability
metric, FHWA encourages comments
from the public on this proposed
approach and/or alternative approaches
that could be used reliably as part of a
national performance program.
The FHWA is proposing that the
LOTTR metric is based on the
variability of travel times over a full
year during following time periods:
Weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.; 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.; and
weekend days 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The FHWA selected these time periods
to cover peak hours and other times of
day the system may be used the most.
It is FHWA’s desire to have the Travel
Time Reliability metric reflect the level
of consistency in travel times during
hours of the day when the majority of
highway use occurs. In addition, by
using these smaller time periods, State
DOTs and MPOs may better understand
reliability issues during varying travel
periods throughout the week (i.e., peak
periods, weekday mid-day, and
weekends) and implement effective
operational strategies. Evaluating the
defined time periods would remove the
times of day when travel is typically
uncongested due to the lack of vehicle
use. The proposed time periods for the
LOTTR metric covers 14 hours of each
day resulting in 168 average travel time
values for each reporting segment
(stored in each 5 minute bin), either
directly measured from probes or using
the calculated travel time at posted
speed limit as discussed above. The
FHWA is proposing that the LOTTR
metric be based on a full calendar year
of data which would require the
analysis of up to 61,488 travel time
values for each reporting segment.92
Analyzing this volume of data for each
reporting segment will be simpler for
the State DOTs and MPOs if they use an
automated spreadsheet or other software
product that features a ‘‘percentile’’
function. This function can be used to
generate the 50th percentile or ‘‘normal
time’’ (a shorter travel time) and the
80th percentile travel time (a longer
travel time) that are being proposed to
calculate the metric. The FHWA is
proposing the use of the 80th percentile
travel time because it is generally
accepted as the upper bound of travel
times that transportation agencies can
plausibly manage using available
resources; travel times beyond this point
are acknowledged to occur during
unique traffic incidents that are outside
the control of a transportation agency.93
The FHWA is proposing the use of the
50th percentile travel time to represent
the ‘‘normal’’ or expected time of travel
during hours of the day when the
highway is predominantly used.
The FHWA reviewed other options for
the denominator in the LOTTR metric
and determined that the 50th percentile,
more so than either the 20th percentile
or average travel time, more accurately
reflected the expected time. Use of the
50th percentile, along with the 80th
percentile, travel time, shows the
variability in travel times that
operational strategies can positively
affect in helping to improve travel time
reliability.
In general, the proposed calculation is
made by ranking, from the shortest
travel time to the longest, all the travel
time values in each reporting segment
for each time period (weekdays 6 a.m.
to 10 a.m.; 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and 4 p.m.
to 8 p.m. and weekends 6 a.m.to 8 p.m.)
every day from January 1st through
December 31st and identifying the 50th
and 80th percentile travel times in this
series for each time period. An example
is contained in Table 11. The FHWA is
proposing that the LOTTR metric would
be calculated by developing a ratio that
compares the 80th percentile travel time
to the normal (50th percentile) travel
time as shown in the following
equation.
93 SHRP 2 Project L03: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-L03-RR-1.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23877
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23878
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
• The metric is focused on travel
occurring during only peak hours of the
day when it may not be correct to
assume free flowing conditions when
data are missing; and
• the metric is computed using
hourly average travel times that can be
determined even if there are missing 5
minute travel time bins within the one
hour time period.
The FHWA also proposes that, for this
metric, any 5 minute bin travel times
that represent travel speeds below 2
mph or above 100 mph be excluded
from the metric calculation to remove
outliers that may negatively affect the
metric. The FHWA encourages
comments on these approaches and
invites suggestions on alternatives that
could be considered that may be more
effective.
In this rulemaking, FHWA is
proposing that the peak period of travel
will occur between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00
a.m. or between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
on non-holiday weekdays. The six 1hour time blocks within these periods
are referred to as the ‘‘peak period’’ in
this rulemaking. The FHWA proposes a
2-step process of determining the peak
hour of travel time for calculating the
PHTTR metric for a reporting segment.
As the first step, the annual average
travel time for each of the six hourly
blocks in the peak period (6:00 a.m. to
7:00 a.m.; 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; 8:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m.) would be calculated
separately for a reporting segment. For
calculating those six annual averages,
measured travel times on non-holiday
weekdays over a full calendar year
would be used. As the second step, the
highest numeric value, or longest time,
of the annual average travel time among
the hours in the peak period would be
selected as the peak hour travel time for
calculating the PHTTR metric for the
reporting segment and that hour would
be referred to as the ‘‘peak hour’’ for
metric and measure development
purposes. For example, if annual
average peak hour travel times across a
reporting segment were as follows: 6:00
a.m. to 7:00 a.m.: 125 seconds; 7:00 a.m.
to 8:00 a.m.: 196 seconds; 8:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m.: 120 seconds; 4:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.: 105 seconds; 5:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m.: 105 seconds; 6:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.: 108 seconds, then the 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 a.m. period with an average annual
hourly travel time of 196 seconds would
be selected as the peak hour and used
to calculate the PHTTR.
This proposed process is illustrated in
the equation below:
Where:
• Max = longest average travel time of the six
peak hours
• i = ‘‘peak hours’’ (each hour between 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.)
• j = day of the year
• T = total number of days in the year
• k = 5 minute bin
• Travel Timek,j,i = vehicle travel time, to the
nearest second, for the reporting segment
recorded or estimated during 5 minute bin
‘‘k,’’ on day ‘‘j,’’ during the peak hour ‘‘i’’
• Peak Hour Travel Time = the highest
recorded annual average travel time, to the
nearest second, occurring throughout the
year during the ‘‘peak hours.’’
Times for each reporting segment, based
on their operational policies for NHS
roadways. The FHWA recommends that
these Desired Peak Period Travel Times
also be developed in consultation with
operating agencies. For each reporting
segment, State DOTs would need to
report a single ‘‘Desired Peak Period
Travel Time’’ for the morning hours in
the peak period and a single ‘‘Desired
Peak Period Travel Time’’ for the
afternoon hours in the peak period
when reporting segments are submitted
to FHWA as proposed in section
490.103(f). As proposed, State DOTs
would only be allowed to modify the
Desired Peak Period Travel Time if the
reporting segment lengths change
during a performance period. The
FHWA anticipates that State DOTs will
work with MPOs, in consultation with
applicable operating agencies, to
develop polices (i.e., desired travel at
posted speed limits) that would
determine how the desired level would
be established. Under this proposed
approach, FHWA does not plan to
approve or judge the Desired Peak
Period Travel time levels or the policies
that will lead to the establishment of
these levels.
The FHWA is proposing that the
PHTTR ratio is a comparison of the Peak
Hour Travel Time to the Desired Peak
Period Travel Time for each reporting
segment and calculated as illustrated in
the following equation:
The FHWA is proposing that State
DOTs, in coordination with MPOs,
establish Desired Peak Period Travel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.008</MATH> EP22AP16.009</MATH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The resulting LOTTR metrics (one for
each time period) would be rounded to
the nearest hundredth decimal place
and calculated for every NHS reporting
segment within the State. The LOTTR
values for each of the four time periods
would be reported for the relevant
reporting segment. The FHWA believes
that the comparison of the 80th and
50th percentiles of the travel times
occurring during the time periods
identified, the most typical travel times,
will reflect the reliability of the system
as perceived by most highway users.
The FHWA encourages comments from
the public on the use of time periods to
develop the LOTTR metric, as well as
the number and length of the time
periods proposed.
In section 490.511(c), FHWA is
proposing that the PHTTR metric would
be calculated by State DOTs for all NHS
mileage within urbanized areas with a
population over 1 million using average
peak hour travel times derived from the
Travel Time Data Set. The proposed
metric is a comparison of the longest
average hourly travel time, referred to in
this rulemaking as the ‘‘peak hour travel
time,’’ to the travel time desired by the
State DOT and MPO for the reporting
segment. The FHWA is not proposing to
address missing data for this metric as:
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
In section 490.511(d), FHWA is
proposing for State DOTs to report
annually the LOTTR and PHTTR
metrics for each applicable reporting
segment on the NHS. State DOTs would
report these metrics in HPMS no later
than June 15th of the following year
(i.e., metrics for calendar year 2017
would be reported no later than June 15,
2018). Specifically, FHWA is proposing
that State DOTs would report annually
the following to the HPMS for each
reporting segment:
• NPMRDS TMC codes (or related
reporting segments made up of multiple
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
• i = reporting segment
• R = total number of reporting segments
operating at a specified performance
level, as defined through a threshold
proposed for each metric
• T = total number of reporting segments in
the system and area applicable to the
measure
• SLi = length of the reporting segment, to
the nearest thousandth of a mile
• Measure = the percentage of the system
operating at a specified performance
level (operating below the metric
threshold).
The FHWA is proposing the level that
represents reliable travel to highway
users is a LOTTR of 1.50. This LOTTR
level represents an operating level
where 80 percent of the travel times
observed on a roadway segment is less
than 50 percent more than what is
observed normally (defined as the 50th
percentile travel time for this
rulemaking). The LOTTR is a ratio, so a
1.0 would mean that the 80th and 50th
percentile travel times were the same. A
1.50 or above LOTTR means that the
80th percentile travel time is 50 percent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Travel Time Segments) or standard
HPMS location referencing;
• LOTTR metrics for each of the four
time periods, to the nearest hundredth;
• 80th percentile, travel times for
each of the four time periods to the
nearest second;
• 50th percentile, travel times for
each of the four time periods to the
nearest second;
• PHTTR metric, to the nearest
hundredth;
• Peak Hour Travel Time, to the
nearest second; and
• the Hour (6 a.m., 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 4
p.m., 5 p.m., or 6 p.m.)
The FHWA intends to issue
additional guidance on how State DOTs
could report these data to HPMS. The
FHWA recognizes the burden associated
with the efforts needed to conflate (or
relate) travel time reporting segments
(NPMRDS data locations) to locations
on a defined roadway network (State
GIS-based locations). For this reason,
FHWA is not proposing a requirement
for State DOTs to conflate the travel
time reporting segments to the HPMS
roadway network. The FHWA intends to
conduct this conflation.
Discussion of Section 490.513
Calculation of System Performance
Measures
longer than the 50th percentile travel
time and represents less than acceptable
travel time reliability. In general, this
operating level of reliability represents
conditions where the amount of time to
travel on an NHS highway is up to 50
percent longer than what users would
have expected. The FHWA also
considered a threshold of 2.0, or twice
the normal travel time, but determined
that these travel times would be longer
than most system users would consider
reliable. The FHWA ultimately chose
the 1.5 threshold understanding that
there will be some variability in travel
time that may be beyond the ability of
operating agencies to affect. While any
LOTTR above 1.00 would indicate some
variability in travel time, it is the
variability that is 50 percent more than
the normal time that is being addressed
with this measure and that has the
ability to be addressed through
operational and other strategy
implementation. The FHWA encourages
comments from the public on the
proposed LOTTR threshold level of 1.50
and if it is at the appropriate level to
indicate unreliable performance.
The FHWA is proposing that a PHTTR
threshold level of 1.50 represents peak
hour travel times that meet expectations
of State DOTs, MPOs, and local
operating agencies. This PHTTR level
represents a condition where observed
(or estimated) travel times in large
urbanized areas are no more than 50
percent higher than what would be
desired for the roadway, as identified by
the State DOT and MPO. The PHTTR is
a ratio where 1.0 would mean that that
the actual peak hour travel time would
equal to the Desired Peak Period Travel
Time. So a PHTTR of 1.5 represents an
actual peak hour travel time that is 50
percent higher than the Desired Peak
Period Travel Time. The FHWA feels
that a PHTTR level of 1.50 or higher
indicates a roadway is no longer
meeting its intended purpose, as desired
by local needs, to move traffic through
the system. The FHWA encourages
comments from the public on the
proposed PHTTR threshold level of 1.50
and if it is at the appropriate level to
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The FHWA is proposing section
490.513 to establish a method that can
be used by State DOTs, MPOs, and
FHWA to calculate the performance
measures proposed in section 490.507.
These system performance measures are
based on the performance metrics
proposed in section 490.511 Calculation
of System Performance Metric(s). The
FHWA expects that State DOTs and
MPOs will use the methods proposed in
this section to assess and report on the
performance of the system. The FHWA
proposes to use this calculation method
to report on performance at a national
level and to carry out its evaluation of
the progress made by State DOTs to
achieve their NHPP targets.
The proposed calculation method
would be used to determine the
percentage of the system, by length,
operating at a specified level of
performance. The general format for this
calculation is illustrated in the equation
below:
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.010</MATH> EP22AP16.011</MATH>
Where:
• Peak Hour Travel Time = the longest
recorded average annual travel time, to
the nearest second, occurring throughout
the year during the ‘‘peak hour;’’
• Desired Peak Period Travel Time = the
desired travel time, to the nearest
second, in the peak period, either
morning or afternoon, that corresponds
to the hour in which the Peak Hour
Travel Time occurred;
• PHTTR = Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio for
the reporting segment to the nearest
hundredth.
23879
23880
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
indicate that peak hour travel time
performance meets expectations.
Both of these measures use the same
threshold—1.50. The FHWA believes
that highway users and operating
agencies begin to consider the system to
not meet expectations when trips take
50 percent longer than what they would
normally expect. For example, highway
users would become frustrated with the
system when a trip that is expected to
take 30 minutes ends up taking 45
minutes or longer.
For the reliability measure, FHWA
evaluated the impact of different
threshold values ranging from 1.2 to 2.0
on reliability of the Interstate System in
five States that varied in size and
population. This evaluation showed
minimal sensitivity to changes in
reliability when the reliability threshold
was above 1.6 and a sharp drop off in
reliability when the threshold was
below 1.3. The FHWA’s proposed
threshold value of 1.50 resulted in
reliability levels that appeared to be
reasonable as a level that could be used
to manage performance.
A summary of the criteria described
previously for the proposed
performance measures, including the
measure, the metric, and transportation
network or geographic area the measure
would apply to, is provided in Table 12
below:
TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MEASURE CRITERIA
Metric &
threshold
Measure
490.507(a)(1): Percent of the Interstate System providing for reliable travel times
(calculation proposed in 490.513(b)).
490.507(a)(2): Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for reliable travel times
(calculation proposed in 490.513(c)).
490.507(b)(1): Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour travel times meet
expectations (calculation proposed in 490.513(d)).
490.507(b)(2): Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times
meet expectations (calculation proposed in 490.513(e)).
Applicable transportation
network/geographic area
LOTTR < 1.50
• Interstate System.
LOTTR < 1.50
• Non-Interstate NHS.
PHTTR < 1.50
• Interstate System in each urbanized
area † with a population >1 M.
• Non-Interstate NHS in each urbanized
area † with a population >1 M.
PHTTR < 1.50
† One measure would be calculated for each urbanized area, including those urbanized areas that intersect with multiple State and metropolitan planning area boundaries.
In this sub-section, FHWA describes
the proposed requirements in Subpart F,
which would establish performance
measures to assess freight movement on
the Interstate System. The discussions
of the proposed requirements are
organized as follows:
• Section 490.601 discusses the
purpose of the subpart;
• Section 490.603 describes the
applicability of the subpart;
• Section 490.605 presents the
definitions;
• Section 490.607 discusses the
performance measures;
• Section 490.609 describes the data
requirements;
• Section 490.611 identifies how to
calculate performance metrics; and,
• Section 490.613 presents how to
calculate performance measures.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Discussion of Section 490.601
Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23
U.S.C. 150(c), to establish performance
measures for State DOTs to use to assess
the performance of freight movement on
the Interstate System. The FHWA
proposes to establish in this subpart a
travel time reliability measure and a
congestion measure for State DOTs and
MPOs to use to assess freight movement
on the Interstate System.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Discussion of Section 490.605
Definitions
previous FHWA research and analyses
confirmed that this is an appropriate
threshold. The FHWA considered other
options, including the 20th percentile
and average speed. After analysis of
these options, the 50th percentile
compared to the 95th percentile
appeared to provide the most
meaningful representation of delay for
the purpose of this rule.
The FHWA proposes to define
Normal Travel Time for freight
performance in the same manner as
defined for system performance in
section 490.603 as the time expected of
Interstate System roadway users to
travel when the system is
predominantly in use. This time is
proposed to be defined as the 50th
percentile travel time occurring during
this period of use. The 50th percentile
relates to the travel time that occurs in
the middle of a distribution of all travel
times for that travel time segment over
a 1-year reporting period. The FHWA
selected the 50th percentile as ‘‘normal
travel’’ because it is the mid-point of all
reported travel time and is more likely
to provide an accurate estimate of the
typical travel time that best serves as the
travel time, or denominator, by which to
compare the highest travel times. The
50th percentile was chosen to represent
the Normal Travel Time because it has
been used in previous FHWA
performance measure research and
analysis to represent a speed at which
a vehicle is traveling without
impediments or congestion. This
Discussion of Section 490.607
National Performance Management
Measures To Assess Freight Movement
on the Interstate System
Slow or unreliable truck travel times
are a cause of diminished productivity
for drivers and equipment; they reduce
the efficiency of operations, increase the
cost of goods, increase fuel costs, and
reduce drivers’ available hours for
service. Considering these potential
impacts and the input received from
public and private sector freight
stakeholders, FHWA is proposing
measures in this subpart that would
focus on both the speed of truck travel
and the time reliability for truck travel.
The FHWA identifies these measures as
complimentary in illustrating
congestion and performance of the
Interstate System. The FHWA believes
that State DOTs and MPOs, by using
both of these measures, can assess and
evaluate areas where freight-movement
problems are occurring on the Interstate
System by looking at the entire
Interstate System within their
boundaries, as well as specific isolated
areas where delays typically occur. The
Discussion of Section 490.603
Applicability
3. Subpart F: National Performance
Management Measures To Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate
System
As required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(6),
FHWA proposes that the freight
performance measures will apply to
freight movement on the Interstate
System.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
two measures proposed are: (1) Percent
of the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Truck Travel Times; and (2)
Percent of the Interstate System
Uncongested.
The first proposed measure (Percent
of the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Truck Travel Times) is based
on the concept of using a metric that is
an index to assess the ‘‘extra budgeted
time’’ needed to assure an on-time
arrival. This concept, used by many
transportation operating agencies today
to assess and manage system operations,
considers the variability in operating
travel times as an indicator of trip time
planning needs. In general, highways
that are operating with higher travel
time variability would require extra
time to be budgeted to assure an on-time
arrival of trips. This metric can be used
as a management tool to identify the
strategies that, when implemented
effectively, would minimize the need
for travelers to have to budget ‘‘extra
time’’ into their trip planning.
The efficient use of resources to move
goods across the country is particularly
critical for freight operations on the
Interstate System. For this reason, the
reliability measure proposed in this
subpart is designed to support freight
trip planning needs where a high level
of certainty is needed to assure on time
arrivals for trips occurring at all hours
throughout the year. Shippers, carriers,
and receivers desire on-time or just-intime delivery of goods and plan their
trips by building in enough time to be
on time. To do this, they consider the
longest travel times of a route by looking
at the distribution of travel times, which
equates to the 95th percentile or higher.
They typically budget their trip time at
the 95th percentile travel time level.
This assures their customers that aside
from an extreme traffic event, they will
be on time. However, the freight
industry will consider the reliability
ratio of the worst travel times to normal
travel times in route planning and
desire for there to be a low ratio
meaning that there is little difference
between the normal travel time and the
worst travel times. They will reroute or
consider other shipping options for
routes with extreme congestion or high
reliability rations. To be consistent with
the industry measures of reliability,
FHWA proposes to use the 95th
percentile travel time in comparison to
the 50th percentile travel time as the
normal travel time. As a threshold,
FHWA proposes that the reliability ratio
be below 1.5. This means that the trips
take no more than 50 percent longer
than normal. The FHWA believes that
the freight industry would not find trips
that are longer than 50 percent above
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
normal reliable. The FHWA seeks
comments on this assumption.
The FHWA selected this ratio based
on information it has received from
stakeholders as well as its own research.
As discussed with relation to section
490.513 (the performance of the NHS
measures), FHWA believes that shippers
and suppliers begin to consider the
system to not meet expectations when
trips take 50 percent longer than what
they would normally expect.
The truck travel time reliability
measure proposed in this subpart differs
from the travel time reliability measure
proposed in Subpart E (for performance
of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS)
of this rulemaking in that the truck
travel time reliability is focused on the
variability in travel times experienced
by trucks during all hours of the day
and throughout the year. In contrast, the
travel time reliability measure proposed
in Subpart E is focused on the
variability in travel times experienced
by all vehicles that typically occur due
to non-recurring events during the times
of the day when the highway facility is
in predominant use. The second
proposed measure (Percent of the
Interstate System Mileage Uncongested)
uses average truck speeds to determine
the percentage of Interstate System
mileage that is considered uncongested.
This measure is being proposed to
assess where delays are occurring on the
Interstate System so that strategies to
address these locations can be
implemented to improve the efficiency
of freight movement. This measure
differs from the reliability measure in
that it is focused on shortening travel
times where the reliability measure is
focused on improving the consistency of
travel times.
The congestion measure proposed in
this subpart differs from the traffic
congestion measure proposed in
Subpart G (Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay per Capita) of this rulemaking in
that the speed threshold to identify the
presence of congestion for freight
movement is higher than the threshold
used to define traffic congestion. In
addition, the freight congestion measure
broadly applies to all Interstate System
roadways across the country where the
traffic congestion measure is focused
only on NHS roadways in the largest
urbanized areas in the country. Both
sets of measures are based on speed.
The freight measures use speed to
identify congested segments, while the
traffic congestion measure uses speed to
calculate the additional travel time
caused by ‘‘excessive’’ delay.
The criteria used to establish the two
proposed measures in this subpart are
derived from research and testing of
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23881
data by FHWA using the FPM. The
FHWA produced two reports illustrating
the use of Travel Time Reliability and
Average Truck Speed measures to
validate the proposed thresholds.94
These reports provided insight into how
well the measures described the travel
conditions on the Interstate System
confirming that the thresholds are
appropriate for the measures.
Discussion of Section 490.609
Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing that State
DOTs use a travel time data set that
would meet the requirements discussed
in section 490.103 of this rulemaking to
calculate the metrics defined in section
490.611. State DOTs and MPOs would
use the same travel time data set to
assess freight movement on the
Interstate System.
The FHWA is proposing that State
DOTs establish and submit reporting
segments as discussed in section
490.103 of this rulemaking. These
reporting segments would be used as the
basis for calculating and reporting
metrics to FHWA, and for their use and
MPO use to calculate measures
proposed in this subpart to assess
freight movement. Reporting segments,
as defined in section 490.101, include
one or more travel time segments and
must be contiguous so that they cover
the full extent of the mainline highways
of the Interstate System in the State. The
section 490.103 discussion included in
this rulemaking provides more
information on the proposal for State
DOTs to define and submit reporting
segments.
The FHWA is proposing in this
section that in cases where the travel
time required to calculate a metric is
missing or represented as a time of ‘‘0’’
or null in the Travel Time Data Set,
State DOTs would be required to use an
observed travel time that represents all
traffic on the roadway during the same
5 minute interval (referred to as ‘‘all
vehicles’’ in the NPMRDS) provided this
travel time is representative of travel
speeds less than the posted speed. In all
other cases, FHWA is proposing that
State DOTs use a travel time that would
have occurred while traveling at the
posted speed limit to replace missing
travel times or those that are
represented as a time of ‘‘0’’ or null in
the Travel Time Data Set. The proposed
use of the ‘‘all traffic’’ and posted speed
94 FHWA 2006, Travel Time Reliability: Making It
There On Time, All the Time. https://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/tt_reliability/; FHWA
2006, Freight Performance Measure: Travel Time in
Freight-Significant Corridors. https://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/perform_
meas/fpmtraveltime/traveltimebrochure.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23882
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
In section 490.611, FHWA proposes
the methodologies for calculating Truck
Travel Time Reliability and Average
Truck Speed metrics. The FHWA is
proposing the same method to calculate
the truck travel time reliability metric as
discussed for the LOTTR metric
discussed in Subpart E of this
rulemaking with the exception of the
days/times and the travel time
percentile used in the calculation. As
discussed previously in Subpart E, this
method would require State DOTs to
assemble and organize a complete year
of travel time data for each reporting
segment to calculate the metric. The
FHWA is proposing in section
490.611(b), that the assembled data
would include, for each reporting
segment, average truck travel times, to
the nearest second, for 5 minute periods
of the day, or 5-minute bins. The
information in those 5-minute bins
would be collected throughout the day,
for every hour of every day from January
1st through December 31st of the same
year. In cases where the 5-minute bins
for travel time segments are:
• Missing from the dataset or include
truck travel times reported as ‘‘0’’ or
null; and
• do not include all traffic travel
times representative of speeds less than
the posted speed limit; then
• a truck travel time would be used
that represents travel at the posted
speed limit (TTT@PSL)
In section 490.611(b), to calculate the
Truck Travel Time Reliability the
FHWA is proposing that State DOTs
would determine from the assembled
data set described above the 95th
percentile travel time and the 50th
percentile travel time. The basis for the
95th percentile travel time is that it
represents more certainty of on-time
arrival for freight stakeholders. The 50th
percentile was chosen, as previously
described, based on an analysis of
reliability measurement and how it
compares to using the 20th percentile or
average. The FHWA analyzed travel
times for several regions in the Nation
with different population characteristics
and found that the 50th percentile
provided the most accurate picture of
reliability.
The metric would be determined by
dividing the 95th percentile travel time
by the 50th percentile travel time for
each reporting segment. The FHWA
believes that the 95th percentile travel
time will represent the longest trip,
excluding extreme outliers, that likely
occurred on the reporting segment
throughout the year and the 50th
percentile travel time will typically
represent the normal time experienced
during the year. Therefore, the proposed
metric will be an indication of the
variability considering nearly all travel
times that had occurred throughout the
year. The FHWA is proposing this
approach so that the Truck Travel Time
Reliability metric would be an indicator
of the planning time needed to assure a
high level of confidence in on-time
arrival of freight movements that could
occur all hours of the day throughout
the year. The FHWA is seeking
comment specifically on the
appropriateness of the proposed
percentiles used in this metric
calculation to assess reliability of truck
travel times on the Interstate System.
In section 490.611(c), to calculate the
Average Truck Speed metric for each
reporting segment, truck travel speeds
would be derived from the data in the
travel time data set. Within that data set,
for any 5-minute bins that are missing
from the dataset, are missing data, or
where data is reported as ‘‘0’’ or null,
those bins would be replaced with the
‘‘all traffic’’ travel time value where the
travel time correlates with speeds that
are less than posted speed limit. In all
other cases, it would be replaced with
a travel time (TTT@PSL) that would
represent the time to traverse the travel
time segment at the posted speed limit.
Because the data set provides average
travel times by Travel Time Segment
and in 5-minute bins (or 5-minute
periods), Average Truck Speed for a
reporting segment would need to be
calculated for the entire calendar year.
Average truck travel time would be
calculated by dividing the Travel Time
Segment length by the truck travel time
for each reporting segment for each 5minute bin throughout the calendar
year. Then, the result of this calculation
for each of the 5-minute bins would be
added together. This sum would be
divided by the total number of 5-minute
bins in a calendar year. This calculation
would be done for each of the reporting
segments.
In section 490.611(d), FHWA is
proposing for State DOTs to report, on
an annual frequency, the Truck Travel
Time Reliability and Average Truck
Speed metrics for each reporting
segment on the Interstate System. State
DOTs would report the annual
outcomes to the HPMS by June 15th of
the following year (i.e., metrics for
calendar year 2017 would be reported
no later than June 15, 2018).
Specifically, FHWA is proposing that
State DOTs would report annually the
following to the HPMS for each
reporting segment:
• Reference NPMRDS TMC codes (or
related reporting segments made up of
multiple TMC codes) or standard HPMS
location referencing;
• Truck Travel Time Reliability
metric, to the nearest hundredth;
• 95th percentile travel time to the
nearest second;
• 50th percentile travel time to the
nearest second; and
• Average Truck Speed metric, to the
nearest hundredth mile per hour.
The FHWA intends to issue
additional guidance on how State DOTs
could report these data to HPMS. The
FHWA recognizes the level of effort
needed to conflate travel time reporting
segments to align them with a
referenced highway network for the
system performance and freight
measures. For this reason, FHWA is not
proposing a requirement for State DOTs
to conflate the travel time reporting
segments to the HPMS roadway
network. The FHWA intends to conduct
this conflation, if needed, if State DOTs
choose to report the metrics by Travel
Time Segment codes.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Discussion of Section 490.611
Calculation of Freight Movement
Metrics
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Discussion of Section 490.613
Calculation of Freight Movement
Measures
In sections 490.613(a) and (b), FHWA
proposes the method to calculate the
measures to assess freight movement on
the Interstate System proposed in
section 490.607. This method would be
used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess
freight performance when reporting and
establishing targets. The FHWA would
also use this to report on freight
performance at a national level. The two
measures would be calculated using the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.012</GPH>
data is discussed in section 490.611. As
discussed previously, FHWA is not
proposing that posted speed limit data
be reported as part of this rulemaking.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
• i = reporting segment
• R = total number of reporting segments
operating at a specified performance
level, as defined through a threshold
proposed for each metric
• T = total number of reporting segments on
the Interstate System in the State
• SLi = length of the reporting segment, to
the nearest thousandth of a mile
• Measure = the percentage of the system
operating at a specified performance
level (operating above the metric
threshold).
The specific criteria proposed to
calculate each of the measures following
the format discussed above is proposed
as follows:
• Truck Travel Time Reliability
metric threshold < 1.50
• Average Truck Speed ≥ 50.00 mph.
The truck travel time reliability
threshold of 1.50 is proposed to be the
level at which truck travel times become
unreliable. This level represents a
condition where travel time could be no
more than 50 percent longer than what
would be expected during normal travel
time conditions. Reliability levels
greater than 1.50 are considered in this
rulemaking to be unreliable due to the
impact of the additional time that
freight operators would need to consider
and provide for during trip planning to
assure on-time arrival. Reliability levels
greater than 1.50 generally mean a trip
could take twice as long as it would at
the 50th percentile or normal travel
time. This would not occur on every
trip, but on the worst days. The FHWA
also considered a threshold of 2.0, or
twice the normal travel time, but
determined that these travel times
would be longer than most users would
consider reliable. The FHWA ultimately
chose the 1.5 threshold understanding
that there will be some variability in
travel time that may be beyond the
ability of operating agencies to affect.
The average truck speed of 50.00 mph
is proposed to be the level at which
delay would exist on Interstate System
highways when speeds are below this
value as posted speed limits on
Interstate System highways are typically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
55 mph or greater. The FHWA is
considering any travel speeds occurring
below 50.00 mph to be representative of
‘‘congested’’ conditions for freight flow.
The FHWA is seeking comment on the
appropriateness of this speed threshold
to indicate congested conditions.
4. Subpart G: National Performance
Management Measures To Assess the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—Traffic
Congestion
In this section, FHWA describes the
proposed changes to Subpart G, which
would establish a performance measure
for assessing traffic congestion. The
discussions of the proposed
requirements are organized as follows:
• Section 490.701 discusses the
purpose of the subpart;
• Section 490.703 describes the
applicability of the subpart;
• Section 490.705 presents the
definitions;
• Section 490.707 discusses the
performance measure;
• Section 490.709 describes the data
requirements;
• Section 490.711 identifies how to
calculate performance metric; and,
• Section 490.713 presents how to
calculate performance measure.
Discussion of Section 490.701
Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23
U.S.C. 150(c), to establish performance
measures for State DOTs to use to assess
traffic congestion for the purpose of
carrying out the CMAQ program. The
FHWA proposes to establish in this
subpart an excessive delay measure for
State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess
traffic congestion.
Discussion of Section 490.703
Applicability
The FHWA proposes that the measure
apply only to those portions of the NHS
in urbanized areas with a population
over 1 million that contain areas
designated as nonattainment or
maintenance areas for the O3, CO, or PM
(PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS under the
CAA Amendments of 1990.
The FHWA felt that the CMAQ Traffic
Congestion measure should apply to
nonattainment/maintenance areas and
should relate to how the CMAQ
program currently operates. Given the
burden of developing multiple
measures, FHWA chose to limit this
measure to urbanized areas over 1
million in population, as agencies in
these areas typically have more
capability and experience in developing
this type of measure than agencies
outside of these areas. In addition,
MPOs in these areas are expected to be
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the same MPOs that are required to
report on this measure as part of the
CMAQ performance plan requirements
in 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
Many traffic congestion reduction
projects that seek CMAQ funding use a
form of a delay measure to show the
benefits of traffic reduction (as well as
emission reductions). This, in part, led
FHWA to focus on a delay measure for
the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measure,
so that existing and future projects
would use similar measures for analysis
as the proposed national measure.
By establishing where and when the
worst delay occurs on the NHS facilities
in large urbanized areas where air
quality is a concern, State DOTs and
MPOs can better plan investments that
address excessive delays and emissions
reduction.
Discussion of Section 490.705
Definitions
The FHWA proposes to define
‘‘Excessive Delay’’ as the traffic speed
that causes delays that would be
perceived by users as being excessive
(i.e., delay that is significantly greater
than normal and, therefore, an
indication of the most congested
conditions). The FHWA is proposing
that ‘‘excessive delay’’ occurs on
Interstates, freeways,95 or
expressways 95 when traffic slows to
below 35 mph, and on other principal
arterials 95 and all other roads included
on the NHS when traffic slows to below
15 mph. These speed thresholds were
chosen to represent ‘‘excessive’’ delay.
Discussion of Section 490.707
National Performance Management
Measures for CMAQ Program—Traffic
Congestion
In section 490.707, FHWA proposes
the measure of Annual Hours of
Excessive Delay Per Capita, which
would be used by State DOTs, MPOs,
and FHWA to assess traffic congestion
performance of large urbanized areas
that contain nonattainment or
maintenance areas for any of the criteria
pollutants under the CMAQ program.
The FHWA is proposing that this
measure be used to establish a single
target and report on traffic congestion
performance for each applicable
urbanized area, including those that
intersect with multiple State and
metropolitan planning area boundaries.
This measure is being proposed because
it addresses the impact of transportation
projects funded under the CMAQ
95 Highway Functional Classification Concepts,
Criteria and Procedures (2013 Edition): https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/
related/highway_functional_classifications/
fcauab.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.013</GPH>
annual metrics reported for reporting
segments.
The proposed calculation method
would be used to determine the
percentage of the system, by length,
operating at a specified level of
performance for each of the two
measures. The general format for this
calculation is illustrated in the equation
below:
23883
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23884
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
program, which are often designed to
create both emissions and congestion
benefits. Incidentally, the proposed
measure would also capture the impacts
of transportation projects funded via
other sources that aid in reducing
congestion in areas applicable to this
measure. Use of an excessive delay
measure relates to the widespread use of
delay-related metrics to justify
congestion-related CMAQ projects, an
important consideration when looking
at what projects will help meet targets
established under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and
23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2).
In order to capture the total delay over
a full year, FHWA is proposing in this
subpart to use vehicle counts as a
method to expand the sampling of
highway average travel times to all
traffic using the system. The FHWA
elected to propose the use of vehicle
counts as this is the most accurate and
widely available information on
nationwide use of the system. Including
vehicle counts in the measure helps
ensure the measure reflects, as closely
as possible from available data, the
actual amount of vehicles delayed. If
FHWA proposed a measure that did not
include vehicle counts, the same length
of delay on a high volume road would
count the same as the same length of
delay on a low volume road.
As discussed in the Performance
Measure Analysis section of this
rulemaking, DOT considered
alternatives to a highway based traffic
congestion measure that would reflect
the delays experienced by all travelers
using all modes of surface
transportation but, for the reasons
discussed in this rulemaking, elected to
propose only a highway based measure
as a first step. After careful
consideration, FHWA determined that it
would be too burdensome at this time
to propose requirements for State DOTs
and MPOs to gather and process the
data necessary to calculate measures
that would be representative of travelers
using all surface transportation modes.
Although technologies are improving
and information on system use is more
available, FHWA believes that the
current state of practice is not yet
mature enough to propose requirements
to measure, in a reliable and consistent
manner, more than highway delay.
Considering the current state, FHWA is
proposing a measurement approach that
would focus on excessive delay
experienced by motor vehicles on the
highway system. The FHWA is
proposing that this measure is expressed
as a ratio of the total excessive highway
delay experienced by all traffic to the
population of the applicable area. This
will provide a more meaningful measure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
as delay is related to a typical person’s
experience in traveling in the urbanized
area. The FHWA recognizes that other
options for making the Annual Vehicle
Hours of Excessive Delay
understandable to the public besides
dividing by urban area population may
exist. The FHWA encourages comments
on using ‘‘per capita’’ or other options.
The FHWA and DOT would like to
move to a measure in the future that
could be used to assess traffic
congestion in a manner that reflects the
experience of all travelers using the
various modes of surface transportation
that are available in an urbanized area.
For the purpose of this rulemaking,
FHWA considers any expansion of the
proposed approach to be a ‘‘future’’
measure of traffic congestion where
such a measure could additionally
capture the congestion as experienced
by travelers that are using other modes
such as: Transit, commuter railways,
walkways, and bikeways. The DOT is
taking steps now to work with State
DOTs, MPOs, and other surface
transportation stakeholders to study and
advance the technologies that could be
used to move the current state of
practice to capture the necessary data to
support a ‘‘future’’ measure.
The FHWA encourages public
comment on the following issues related
to the measure approach and methods
that can be used to realize a ‘‘future’’
measure of traffic congestion.
• Are there existing methods that can
be used reliably to weigh the highway
delay metric by ‘‘total vehicle
occupants’’ rather than ‘‘total number of
vehicles’’? Are there technologies or
methods that could be advanced in the
next 3–5 years to capture vehicle
occupancy data?
• Which surface modes of
transportation, other than highways,
have readily available data that could be
used to support a measure to assess
traffic congestion? To what extent is this
information available in the urbanized
areas applicable to the measure
proposed in this subpart?
• What would be the appropriate
surface transportation network to use to
measure traffic congestion in the future?
Is data available off the NHS that can be
used to assess traffic congestion that can
be made available to all State DOTs and
MPOs?
Discussion of Section 490.709 Data
Requirements
The FHWA is proposing for State
DOTs and MPOs to use a travel time
data set that would meet the
requirements discussed in section
490.103 of this rulemaking to calculate
the metrics defined in section 490.711.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
State DOTs and MPOs would use the
same travel time data set to assess traffic
congestion for all applicable directional
mainline highways on the NHS.
In section 490.709(b), FHWA is
proposing for State DOTs to establish
and submit reporting segments, in
coordination with MPOs on the
segments within metropolitan planning
areas, as discussed in section 490.103 of
this rulemaking. These reporting
segments would be used as the basis for
calculating and reporting metrics to
FHWA and for calculating measures
proposed in this subpart to assess traffic
congestion. Reporting segments, as
defined in 490.101, include one or more
travel time segments, and would be
contiguous so they cover the full extent
of the mainline highways of the NHS in
the State. The section 490.103
discussion included in this rulemaking
provides more information on the
proposal for State DOTs to define and
submit reporting segments.
To calculate the measure, State DOTs
also would need to provide estimates of
hourly traffic volume that can be
applied to some or all portions of the
NHS in areas applicable to this measure.
Traffic volumes would be needed to
estimate the accumulated delay
experienced by all users of the highway
system. The FHWA is proposing in
section 490.709(c) that State DOTs
could use one of the two methods
proposed in section 490.709(c)(1) to
count or estimate hourly traffic volumes
for each reporting segment. Examples of
standard approaches to estimate hourly
traffic include using AADT with kfactors or traffic profiles. The hourly
traffic volumes do not have to be
submitted to FHWA, but State DOTs
would need to report to FHWA the
method they used to estimate traffic
volumes. State DOTs would need to
report the method they use to FHWA no
later than 60 days prior to the submittal
of the first Baseline Performance Period
Report. The FHWA recognizes State
DOTs subsequently may change the
method they used to estimate traffic
volumes. Thus, FHWA proposes in
section 490.709(c)(4) that if a State DOT
elects to change the submitted
methodology, then the State DOT would
submit the changed methodology no
later than 60 days prior to the submittal
of next State Biennial Performance
Report required in section 490.107(b).
The population of the applicable area
is needed to calculate the proposed
traffic congestion measure. The FHWA
is proposing in section 490.709(d) that
the most recently available U.S.
Decennial Census population data
available at the time when the State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Report is due to FHWA would be used
for the entire performance period.
Census-defined urbanized areas could
change between the Decennial Census
and could be adjusted on varying
schedules. Consequently, the
population in those changed or adjusted
urbanized areas may change as well.
The FHWA recognizes that if an
urbanized area boundary is changed
after the target is established by the
State DOT for urbanized areas, then
actual measured performance within the
changed urbanized area boundary
would represent a different
transportation network and population
as compared to what was used to
establish the target. This difference
could impact a State DOT’s ability to
make significant progress for targets.
Thus, for calculating the traffic
congestion measure, FHWA proposes
that State DOTs and MPOs would use
the latest Decennial Census population
of urbanized areas available at the time
when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Reports are due to
FHWA, regardless of subsequent
boundary adjustment or natural
population changes. This means that the
population numbers used in the
calculation of the traffic congestion
measure would remain constant for the
duration of a performance period.
Similarly, urbanized areas that
contain nonattainment or maintenance
areas would be based on the designation
status at the time the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is
due to FHWA, and that designation
status would be used for the entire
performance period.
The geographic areas that would be
applicable to this measure would be
identified in the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report submitted to
FHWA. These areas would continue to
be applicable to the measure (or
conversely remain ‘‘not applicable’’) for
the duration of the performance period
regardless of changes to designation,
urbanized areas, or populations that
may occur during the performance
period. The FHWA is proposing that the
applicability of the area be determined
using the most recent U.S. Decennial
Census reports on area populations; the
urbanized areas approved by FHWA and
submitted in HPMS at the start of a
performance period; and the EPA
nonattainment or maintenance
designations for the O3, CO, and PM
NAAQS. At the time of this rulemaking,
36 urbanized areas in the U.S. would be
applicable to this measure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Discussion of Section 490.711
Calculation of Congestion Metric
The FHWA is proposing in this
section for State DOTs to calculate the
Total Excessive Delay for each reporting
segment and report these metrics to
FHWA annually.
Section 490.711(b) contains the
specific data that is required to calculate
the metric and is described in more
detail in the discussion of section
490.709(b). The use of the data is
explained in the proposed calculation
methodology.
The FHWA is proposing in section
490.711(c) through (e) the method to
calculate the Total Excessive Delay as
discussed below.
Excessive Delay Threshold Travel
Time—The FHWA is proposing in
section 490.711(c) the establishment of
two threshold travel speeds that would
be used to indicate when operating
conditions have deteriorated to the
point that excessive travel time delays
would occur. Any measured travel
speeds below the threshold would
represent the operating condition level
that would result in excessive delays.
These thresholds are proposed to be:
• 35 mph for Interstates, freeways, or
expressways, and
• 15 mph for all other NHS roadways.
The FHWA defines congestion on the
agency Traffic Congestion Reliability
reporting Web site 96 as ‘‘an excess of
vehicles on a roadway at a particular
time resulting in speeds that are
slower—sometimes much slower—than
normal or free flow speeds. (Congestion
is) stop-and-go traffic.’’ The Urban
Congestion Report, a quarterly
publication produced for FHWA, uses a
speed threshold of 45 mph to define
congested travel on Interstates and other
highways, in a number of urban areas
across the country. Operating speeds
that are below a ‘‘free flow’’ speed will
generate some level of delay and
therefore could be seen by travelers as
a congested condition. The FHWA
decided when establishing the proposed
traffic congestion measure to assess
when delays are excessively impacting
travel, so that the worst congestion
would be accounted for and, hopefully,
addressed. By accounting for the worst
congestion, FHWA believes that the
proposed approach could help reduce
overall traffic congestion. For this
reason, FHWA selected proposed
thresholds of 35 mph on Interstate and
other highways to express excessive
(rather than just congested conditions at
45 mph), and 15 mph on principle
96 Traffic Congestion Reliability, https://
www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/
index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23885
arterials and all other roadways on the
NHS to identify excessive delay when
speed limits can be as low as 25 mph
on these roads. The threshold for
Interstates and other highways is below
the threshold FHWA uses to define
congested travel in the Urban
Congestion Report. However, FHWA
believes that the proposed thresholds
represent operating speeds that would
excessively impact travel times. The
FHWA encourages public comment on
these proposed thresholds and invites
alternative approaches to define the
threshold at which excessive delay
would occur.
The Excessive Delay Threshold Travel
Time would be determined by the State
DOT for each travel time segment to
represent the time that it could take for
a vehicle to traverse the reporting
segment before excessive delay would
occur. This time threshold would be
determined by dividing the travel time
segment length by the excessive delay
threshold speed corresponding to the
roadway functional level (35 mph or 15
mph) and converting the quotient to a
time unit of seconds. For example, if a
travel time segment on an Interstate is
1⁄2 mile in length, then the Excessive
Delay Threshold Travel Time for that
segment would be the travel time at 35
mph. The calculation would be Segment
length (.5 mile) divided by threshold
speed (35 mph) which equals .0142
hours, or 51.4 seconds.
Excessive Delay—The FHWA is
proposing in section 490.711(d) the
method to determine the amount of
excessive delay occurring during each 5minute interval for a Travel Time
Segment within the travel time data set
for which travel times were recorded.
The excessive delay would be
determined by comparing the recorded
average travel time 97 from the 5-minute
bin to the Excessive Delay Threshold
Travel Time for the corresponding
Travel Time Segment discussed in the
previous paragraph. The excessive delay
would need to be determined for every
5-minute interval for every hour and
every day during a calendar year. The
methodology proposed in the regulation
identifies an arithmetic difference
between the measured and an Excessive
Delay Threshold Travel Time for each 5minute bin for individual reporting
segment as the travel time segment
delay or the reporting segment delay
(RSD).
The RSD, as calculated above, would
result in a positive or negative amount
97 The NMPRDS provides a recorded average
travel time (in seconds) from the 5-minute bin for
Travel Time Segment that is an average travel time
of all the probes that traveled through that Travel
Time Segment during a 5-minute interval.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23886
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Total Excessive Delay—The FHWA is
proposing in section 490.711(e) the
method State DOTs would use to
calculate the excessive delay metric for
each reporting segment where this value
represents the accumulated amount of
additional time, in hours, that were
experienced by all traffic throughout a
full calendar year as a result of being
excessively delayed. The metric would
be calculated by first multiplying (1) the
Excessive Delay values for a particular
5-minute bin by (2) the estimated traffic
volume for a recorded 5-minute interval
(which would be based on the hourly
volume for the hour that corresponds to
the 5-minute interval). That calculation
would be done for every 5-minute bin
of every day for the entire calendar year.
Then, the product of those calculations
would be added up for a reporting
segment to produce the metric—Total
Excessive Delay (in vehicle hours), an
annual metric. This proposed
calculation method would be based only
on recorded travel times in the travel
time data set as FHWA is assuming in
this rulemaking that any missing or null
travel time values would be occurring
when travel times are consistent with
free flow speeds. The FHWA believes
that this assumption is valid as missing
or null values would likely occur when
very few or no vehicles are using the
roadway.
The FHWA is proposing for State
DOTs to use estimated hourly traffic
volumes to expand the travel times,
determined by probing a sample of
highway users, to represent the total
excessive delay experienced by roadway
users. An example of this proposed
method is provided in Figure 9 below:
In this example, 178 highway probes
were recorded (from mobile phones,
vehicles, or portable navigation devices)
during a 5-minute period of time which,
on average, took 82 seconds to traverse
a 0.50 mile long roadway segment
located on a freeway. These highway
users were experiencing excessive delay
as the threshold time for this roadway
segment is 51 seconds. For this
example, the additional time
experienced by each highway user as a
result of being excessively delayed is
estimated to be 0.009 hours. This delay
per highway user is expanded to
represent all traffic by multiplying the
delay per user, 0.009 hours, by the
estimated traffic volume during the 5
minute interval, 433.3 vehicles. The
product of 3.900 vehicle-hours is the
Total Excessive Delay for the 5 minute
interval. The final metric for this
example would then carry out this same
process for every 5 minute interval
through a full calendar year and for each
travel time segment within the reporting
segment.
The FHWA recognizes that the
proposed method would apply a delay
per highway user to total vehicles to
identify the total excessive delay of
vehicles. The FHWA elected to use this
approach as it is believed that traffic
volume data are the most accurate and
complete data available on the use of
the highways. As previously discussed,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.014</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
of time. Any positive RSD values would
be considered the additional amount of
time, during the corresponding 5minute time interval, each user of the
roadway would have needed to traverse
the Travel Time Segment as compared
to traveling at the threshold speed. Any
negative RSD times would represent 5minute times in which travel is not
excessively delayed. These negative
RSD values would change to ‘‘0’’
seconds. Any positive RSD values that
are calculated to be above 5 minutes
would be capped at 5 minutes to
prevent excessive delay from being
counted twice. The excessive delay for
the travel time segment would be
determined by converting the RSD
values (0 or greater than 0) to a unit of
‘‘hours,’’ by dividing the RSD by 3,600
seconds/hour.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the FHWA desires to move to a future
measure that would account for all
travelers and encourages public
comment as to how and when this can
be accomplished in a reliable and
accurate manner at a national level.
The FHWA is proposing section
490.711(f) that would require State
DOTs to report annually on the Total
Excessive Delay (as measured in
vehicle-hours) metric for each
applicable reporting segment on the
NHS. State DOTs would report the
annual outcomes to the HPMS by June
15th of the following year (i.e., metrics
for calendar year 2017 would be
reported no later than June 15, 2018).
Specifically, FHWA is proposing that
State DOTs would report annually the
following to the HPMS for each
reporting segment:
• NPMRDS TMC codes or standard
HPMS location referencing; and
• Total Excessive Delay metric, to the
nearest one hundredth hours.
The FHWA intends to issue
additional guidance on how State DOTs
could report these data to HPMS. As
discussed previously with respect to
proposed sections 490.511 and 490.611,
FHWA recognizes the level of effort to
conflate travel time reporting segments
to align with a referenced highway
network. For this reason, FHWA is not
proposing a requirement for State DOTs
to conflate the travel time reporting
segments to the HPMS roadway
network. The FHWA intends to conduct
this conflation, if needed, if State DOTs
choose to report the metric by Travel
Time Segment reference codes.
Discussion of Section 490.713
Calculation of Congestion Measure
The FHWA is proposing the method
to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to
calculate the traffic congestion measure,
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per
Capita, proposed in section 490.707.
The FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs
would all use this method to assess
performance, establish targets, and/or
report on performance. The measure
would be calculated by summing the
Total Excessive Delay, calculated as
proposed in section 490.711, of all
reporting segments in the applicable
area and then dividing this total by the
population for the applicable area. As
discussed in section 490.703, this
measure is calculated for each
urbanized area with a population over 1
million that contain nonattainment or
maintenance areas for any of the criteria
pollutants covered under the CMAQ
program. A single measure would be
determined for urbanized areas that
intersect with multiple State and
metropolitan planning area boundaries
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
and for each applicable area within a
State boundary. For example, in the
State of Maryland, based on the 2010
U.S. Decennial Census and areas
designated nonattainment or
maintenance at the time of this
rulemaking for O3, CO, and/or PM; there
are three TMAs that are applicable to
this measure including Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and Washington DC In this
case, for Maryland, the State DOTs and
MPOs with NHS mainline highways in
these TMAs would need to calculate
three identical measures for the entire
area, and report associated targets: One
for the Baltimore area, and one each for
the Philadelphia area and the
Washington DC area.
5. Subpart H: National Performance
Management Measures for the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions
In this section, FHWA describes the
proposed changes to Subpart H, which
would establish a performance measure
for assessing on-road mobile source
emissions. The discussion of the
proposed requirements is as follows:
• Section 490.801 discusses the
purpose of the subpart;
• Section 490.803 describes the
applicability of the subpart;
• Section 490.805 presents the
definitions;
• Section 490.807 discusses the
performance measure;
• Section 490.809 describes the data
requirements;
• Section 490.811 identifies how to
calculate performance metric;
• Section 490.813 presents how to
calculate performance measure.
Discussion of Section 490.801 Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23
U.S.C. 150(c), to establish performance
measures for State DOTs to assess onroad mobile source emissions for the
purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
program. The FHWA proposes to
establish in this subpart a measure for
State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess
the reduction of the criteria pollutants
and applicable precursors under the
CMAQ program through the
programming of projects.
Discussion of Section 490.803
Applicability
In section 490.803(a), FHWA proposes
that the on-road mobile source
emissions performance measure would
be applicable to State DOTs and MPOs
that received funding from the CMAQ
program that contain areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for the
O3, CO, or PM (PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23887
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.
Similar to the traffic congestion
measure, for this measure MPOs serving
urbanized areas over 1 million in
population with nonattainment and
maintenance areas have additional
performance reporting requirements
(See 23 U.S.C. 149(l)). Because of the
special emphasis for these areas, FHWA
proposes that these areas would be
subject to the full set of performance
requirements. The FHWA anticipates
that MPOs serving in these areas over 1
million in population with
nonattainment or maintenance areas
could calculate and use the proposed
performance measure to assess on-road
mobile source emissions in their
applicable planning area as these
organizations have more experience and
capability to manage their air quality
program through the transportation
conformity process and the
implementation of the CMAQ program,
including estimating emissions
reductions and reporting to the CMAQ
Public Access System.98 Accordingly,
FHWA’s proposal includes some
additional requirements for the MPOs
serving larger urbanized areas that are
described in more detail throughout this
NPRM. For nonattainment and
maintenance areas defined in section
490.803(a) with a population below this
threshold, even though they are not
subject to the additional CMAQ
performance plan reporting
requirements, FHWA proposes that the
measure would apply in these areas, but
with more flexibility. The FHWA
believes that since all O3, CO, or PM
nonattainment and maintenance areas,
regardless of size, are eligible to receive
CMAQ funds and all CMAQ-funded
projects must demonstrate an emissions
reduction, then the measure should
apply to all areas. The FHWA believes
that planning organizations serving
smaller urbanized areas, including
‘‘donut areas’’ (as defined in 40 CFR
93.101) could either calculate and use
the performance measure or support the
State DOT and rely on it to calculate
and use the performance measure to
assess on-road mobile source emissions.
State DOTs would also calculate and
use the measure in ‘‘isolated rural
nonattainment and maintenance areas,’’
as defined in 40 CFR 93.101.
In section 490.803(b), FHWA
proposes that State DOTs and MPOs
that do not contain any O3, CO, PM10,
and PM2.5 nonattainment or
maintenance areas would not be
required to calculate and report on on98 CMAQ Performance Plan as required by 23
U.S.C. 149(l).
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23888
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
road mobile source emission
performance as these State DOTs and
MPOs are allowed for flexibility in
spending their CMAQ funds whereby
projects are not required to adhere to
specific CMAQ eligibility requirements
can be funded by CMAQ.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Discussion of Section 490.805
Definitions
The FHWA proposes definitions
associated with the on-road mobile
source emissions performance measures
that are used in the proposed regulation.
It includes definitions for Donut Areas,
Isolated Rural Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas, and On-Road
Mobile Source.
The FHWA proposes to utilize the
same definition for donut area and
isolated rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas, as found in the
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.101. The FHWA proposes to define
on-road mobile sources as emissions
from vehicles that you would typically
expect to find on our roadways, such as
cars, trucks, and buses.99
Discussion of Section 490.807
National Performance Management
Measures for CMAQ Program: On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions
In section 490.807, FHWA proposes
the measure of ‘‘Total Emissions
Reduction’’ to assess on-road mobile
source emissions. The measure will be
the 2-year and 4-year cumulative
reported emissions reduction resulting
from CMAQ projects, by applicable
criteria pollutants (O3, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5) and applicable precursors (e.g.,
VOC and NOX are precursors for O3 and
PM) for which the area is in
nonattainment or maintenance. For
example, in the case of O3, a measure
will need to be established for each of
O3’s precursors, NOX and VOC. The
FHWA would like, through this
rulemaking, to establish a measure that
would rely on the existing processes
State DOTs are using to manage, track,
and report projects as part of the CMAQ
program. For this reason, FHWA elected
to base the proposed measure on the
estimated emission reductions reported
by State DOTs for CMAQ-funded
projects through the CMAQ Public
Access System. As discussed in the
Measure Analysis section of the
rulemaking, FHWA believes that this
approach provides the best opportunity
to effectively implement the MAP–21
performance requirements for on-road
mobile source emissions. The data and
99 ‘‘What is Transportation Conformity?’’ training
slides https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/
whatisconformity/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
tools to support the performance
measure are readily available at a
national level and are already in use
today. The FHWA believes that
collecting emissions data on a projectby-project basis through vehicle probing
or another means would be cost
prohibitive and would delay
implementation because enough pre and
post project completion data would not
be available to accurately measure the
actual reductions. The FHWA is
proposing in this rulemaking to
establish a measure that expresses the
total emissions reduced per fiscal year,
for all CMAQ-funded projects by
pollutant and applicable precursors for
which the area has been designated as
nonattainment or maintenance. The
emissions reductions would be summed
for each fiscal year and cumulated by
applicable pollutant and precursor to
represent total reductions estimated
after 2 fiscal years and after 4 fiscal
years.
Discussion of Section 490.809
Requirements
Data
The FHWA proposes to use the
CMAQ Public Access System 100 as the
data source for the measure, based on
data available as of July 1 of the
calendar year in which a CMAQ
performance plan required in 23 U.S.C.
149(l) or State Biennial Performance
Reports, required in section 490.107, is
due. The CMAQ Public Access System
is populated from the State DOT CMAQ
annual report 101 which includes project
information submitted through the
CMAQ project tracking system.102 The
FHWA uses these yearly submissions
through the CMAQ Public Access
System to maintain a database of CMAQ
investments as required by 23 U.S.C.
149(i)(1). Drawing from the information
in the database, the CMAQ Public
Access System provides an opportunity
for the general public and project
sponsors to have access to information
submitted through the annual reporting
process.
State DOTs report estimated
emissions reductions of CMAQ projects
for the first year that a project is
obligated and only the first time a
project is entered into the system, not
each time the project receives CMAQ
funds, to avoid double counting of
100 The Public Access System is available at:
https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/cmaq_pub/
HomePage/.
101 Guidance on CMAQ annual reporting can be
found in section IX. C. of the CMAQ Interim
Program Guidance under MAP–21, November 12,
2013.
102 Information on the CMAQ project tracking
system can be found at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment/air_quality/cmaq/reporting/.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
benefits. The quantitative emissions
reduction estimates are reported for
each CMAQ-funded project in kilograms
(kg) per day for applicable criteria
pollutants (and their precursors) for
which the area is nonattainment or
maintenance. These five pollutants or
precursors include CO, PM2.5, PM10,
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and volatile
organic compound (VOC). Both NOX
and VOC are potential precursors to O3,
PM10 and PM2.5. While no single method
is specified in the CMAQ Guidance for
estimating emissions, every effort
should be taken to ensure that the
estimates are credible and based on a
reproducible and logical analytical
procedure. The FHWA is working to
develop a tool kit of best practices to
improve the assumptions and
calculations used to quantitatively
estimate emissions.
For the purpose of establishing targets
in section 490.105, FHWA proposes the
annual reports shall include for each
project, the applicable nonattainment or
maintenance area and MPO for which
the project is located, and quantified
emissions reductions for all applicable
criteria pollutants (and their precursors)
for which the area is nonattainment or
maintenance. For those projects that do
not include a quantified emissions
reduction (i.e., public education and
marketing), the CMAQ guidance allows
for a qualitative assessment. This option
is still allowed, but those projects will
not be considered for the purposes of
implementing the on-road mobile
source emissions measure.
In 490.809(b), FHWA is proposing a
period of approximately 120 days for
FHWA to review and approve the data
for publication in the CMAQ Public
Access System. Considering this time
allowance, FHWA is proposing that
specific dates be established for when
FHWA approves the State DOT’s annual
reports and when data are available for
extraction from the CMAQ Public
Access System for the purpose of
implementing the on-road mobile
source emissions measure. These dates
are necessary in order to report the
measures and establish targets in a
timely manner. The FHWA is proposing
the following dates:
• March 1—The FHWA is proposing
that State DOTs enter their project
information for a given fiscal year by
March 1st of the following fiscal year;
and
• July 1—The FHWA is proposing
that it will make available the data
necessary to calculate the on-road
mobile source emissions measure will
be in the CMAQ Public Access System
by July 1st for project obligations in the
prior fiscal year.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
In 490.809(c), FHWA is proposing to
identify nonattainment or maintenance
areas based on the most recent effective
designations made by the EPA when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA. The areas
designated at this time will remain as
the areas applicable to this subpart for
the duration of the performance period.
For example, for a performance period
that begins on October 1, 2017, and ends
on September 30, 2021, FHWA would
consider the designated areas as of
October 1, 2018, to be those subject to
this subpart even if the effective
nonattainment and maintenance area
designations change during the
performance period after this date.
Discussion of Section 490.811
Calculation of Emissions Metric
The FHWA proposes in section
490.811 the method that would be used
by State DOTs and MPOs to calculate
the annual emission reductions for
projects reported to the CMAQ Public
Access System in a Federal fiscal year.
The metric would be calculated for each
CMAQ-funded project and for each
applicable criteria pollutant and
precursor. The proposed method would
convert the emissions reductions
reported in the CMAQ Public Access
System from units of kg per day to short
tons per year: One kg per day is equal
to 0.4026 short tons per year. The
emissions reductions would then be
summed for all projects within the
applicable reporting area, by criteria
pollutant or precursor, for a Federal
fiscal year. The annual emissions
reductions (in tons/year) would be used
to calculate the performance measure
proposed in section 490.813.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Discussion of Section 490.813
Calculation of Emissions Measure
The FHWA proposes in section
490.813 that State DOTs and MPOs
should calculate on-road mobile source
emissions reductions by summing the
annual tons of emissions reduced by
CMAQ projects, using the 2 and 4 years
of available data from the Public Access
System as proposed in section 490.809
by criteria pollutant or precursor. For
example, for the first proposed
performance period that would begin on
October 1, 2017, and end on September
30, 2021. So the 2-year total emissions
reductions by criteria pollutant or
applicable precursor for the
performance period would reflect
project data from Federal fiscal years
from 2018 through 2019, and the 4-year
total emissions reductions by criteria
pollutant or applicable precursor for the
performance period would reflect
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
project data from Federal fiscal years
from 2018 through 2021.
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the
close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be
considered and available for
examination in the docket at the above
address. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be filed in
the docket and considered to the extent
practicable. In addition to late
comments, FHWA will also continue to
file relevant information in the docket
as it becomes available after the
comment period closing date, and
interested persons should continue to
examine the docket for new material. A
final rule may be published at any time
after close of the comment period and
after FHWA has had the opportunity to
review the comments submitted.
A. 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 a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866 and is significant
within the meaning of DOT regulatory
policies and procedures. This action
complies with Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 to improve regulation. This
action is considered significant because
of widespread public interest in the
transformation of the Federal-aid
highway program to be performancebased, although it is not economically
significant within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866. The FHWA is
presenting a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(regulatory analysis or RIA) in support
of this NPRM on National Performance
Measures to Assess Performance of the
National Highway System, Freight
Movement on the Interstate System, and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program. 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
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563. The economic impacts are
measured on an incremental basis,
relative to current 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 (FHWA–2013–0054).
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23889
The cornerstone of MAP–21’s
highway program transformation 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 goal
areas. The MAP–21 establishes national
performance goals for system reliability,
freight movement and economic vitality,
and environmental sustainability. The
FHWA must promulgate a rule to
establish performance measures to
assess performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS; assess
freight movement on the Interstate
System, and to carry out the CMAQ
program and assess traffic congestion
and on-road mobile source emissions.
As required by MAP–21, this NPRM
identifies the following 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. Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times;
2. Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
providing for Reliable Travel Times;
3. Percent of the Interstate System
where peak hour travel times meet
expectations;
4. Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
where peak hour travel times meet
expectations;
5. Percent of the Interstate System
Mileage providing for Reliable Truck
Travel Times;
6. Percent of the Interstate System
Mileage Uncongested;
7. Annual Hours of Excessive Delay
Per Capita; and
8. Cumulative emissions reduction
resulting from CMAQ projects by
criteria pollutant for which the area is
in nonattainment or maintenance.
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.
Because there is some uncertainty
regarding the availability of NPMRDS
data for use by State DOTs and MPOs,
FHWA estimated the cost of the
proposed rule according to two
scenarios. Under Scenario 1, FHWA
assumes that it will provide State DOTs
and MPOs with the required data from
NPMRDS. Table 13 displays the total
cost of the proposed rule for the 11-year
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23890
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
study period (2016–2026).103 Total costs
over 11 years are estimated to be $165.3
million undiscounted, $117.4 million
discounted at 7 percent, and $141.6
million discounted at 3 percent.
TABLE 13—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER SCENARIO 1
11-Year total cost
Cost components
Undiscounted
7%
3%
Section 490.103—Data Requirements ........................................................................................
Intake and Process DOT Travel Time Data .........................................................................
NPMRDS Data Acquisition ...................................................................................................
NPRMDS Data Training .......................................................................................................
NPMRDS Data Reconciliation ..............................................................................................
Section 490.105–490.109—Reporting Requirements .................................................................
Document and Submit Description of Coordination Between State DOTs and MPOs .......
Establish and Update Performance Targets ........................................................................
Prepare and Submit Initial Performance Report ..................................................................
Reporting on Performance Targets Progress ......................................................................
Prepare CMAQ Performance Plan .......................................................................................
Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving Performance Targets ................................
Adjust HPMS to Handle Data in TMC Format and Design Post-Submission Reports ........
HPMS Data Processing (e.g., Data Verification) .................................................................
Section 490.511—Calculation of Performance Metrics for NHS Performance ...........................
Calculate LOTTR ..................................................................................................................
Estimate Desired Level of PHTTR for All Roads .................................................................
Calculate PHTTR ..................................................................................................................
Section 490.513—Calculation of Performance Measure for NHS Performance ........................
Develop Reliability Performance Measures .........................................................................
Develop Travel Time Performance Measures .....................................................................
Section 490.611—Calculation of Performance Metrics for Freight Mobility ...............................
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Establish Process ................................................
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Update Average ...................................................
Calculate Truck Reliability: Establish Process .....................................................................
Calculate Truck Reliability: Update Metric ...........................................................................
Section 490.613—Calculation of Performance Measures for Freight Reliability ........................
Develop Freight Travel Time Performance Measures .........................................................
Develop Freight Reliability Performance Measures .............................................................
Section 490.711—Calculation of Performance Metric for CMAQ Congestion ............................
Calculate Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time .............................................................
Identify all 5-minute Bins with Travel Times above the Threshold Speed and Calculate
Excessive Delay ................................................................................................................
Develop Hourly Traffic Volumes in Order to Weight Segments ..........................................
Finalize Weighted Metrics for Reporting ..............................................................................
Section 490.713—Calculation of Congestion Measure ...............................................................
Develop Congestion Performance Measure ........................................................................
Section 490.811—Calculation of Emissions Metric .....................................................................
Develop Emission Performance Metric for Some CMAQ Projects ......................................
Section 490.813—Calculation of Emissions Measure ................................................................
Develop Emission Performance Measure ............................................................................
$21,241,714
15,918,501
4,000,000
489,800
833,414
90,529,176
2,134,912
40,763,607
919,236
31,269,138
13,465,179
1,933,462
24,804
18,838
5,478,984
2,828,595
787,736
1,862,653
4,285,750
3,084,798
1,200,952
3,306,150
183,675
1,469,400
183,675
1,469,400
14,807,031
7,403,516
7,403,516
5,128,771
1,282,193
$15,226,570
11,180,489
2,809,433
457,757
778,891
63,693,723
2,134,912
29,114,925
919,236
21,219,453
9,137,563
1,132,171
23,181
12,282
3,897,015
1,961,095
654,465
1,281,455
3,111,923
2,239,901
872,023
2,407,408
171,659
1,032,045
171,659
1,032,045
10,751,525
5,375,762
5,375,762
3,710,508
927,627
$18,275,559
13,578,804
3,412,081
475,534
809,139
77,239,133
2,134,912
35,021,902
919,236
26,279,023
11,316,326
1,528,071
24,082
15,581
4,698,453
2,399,861
723,310
1,575,282
3,709,859
2,670,283
1,039,576
2,863,507
178,325
1,253,428
178,325
1,253,428
12,817,359
6,408,679
6,408,679
4,429,895
1,107,474
1,165,630
1,515,319
1,165,630
6,612,300
6,612,300
13,285,826
13,285,826
593,412
593,412
818,690
1,145,502
818,690
4,801,253
4,801,253
9,331,408
9,331,408
430,882
430,882
994,306
1,333,810
994,306
5,723,782
5,723,782
11,333,079
11,333,079
513,673
513,673
Total Cost of Proposed Rule .........................................................................................
165,269,115
117,362,215
141,604,299
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Under Scenario 2, which represents
‘‘worst case’’ conditions, State DOTs
would choose to independently acquire
the necessary data. Table 14 displays
the total cost of the proposed rule for
the 11-year study period (2016–2026).
Total costs over 11 years are estimated
to be $224.5 million undiscounted,
$158.9 million discounted at 7 percent,
and $192.1 million discounted at 3
percent.
103 In FHWA’s first two performance measure
NPRMs, it assessed costs over a 10-year study
period. Because FHWA is now proposing
individual effective dates for each of its
performance measure rules rather than a common
effective date, the timing of the full implementation
of the measures has shifted. Using an 11-year study
period ensures that the cost assessment includes the
first 2 performance periods following the effective
date of the rulemaking, which is comparable to
what the 10-year study period assessed in the first
two NPRMs. An 11-year study period captures the
first year costs related to preparing and submitting
the Initial Performance Report and a complete cycle
of the incremental costs that would be incurred by
State DOTs and MPOs for assembling and reporting
all required measures as a result of the proposed
rule. FHWA anticipates that the recurring costs
beyond this timeframe would be comparable to
those estimated in the 10-year period of analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23891
TABLE 14—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER SCENARIO 2
11-Year total cost
Cost components
Undiscounted
7%
3%
Section 490.103—Data Requirements ........................................................................................
Acquire Freight and General Traffic Data ............................................................................
Adjust Contract for Freight-only Data ...................................................................................
Remove Estimated Data Values from Database .................................................................
Intake and Process ...............................................................................................................
Data Training ........................................................................................................................
Data Reconciliation ...............................................................................................................
Section 490.105–490.109—Reporting Requirements .................................................................
Document and Submit Description of Coordination Between State DOTs and MPOs .......
Establish and Update Performance Targets ........................................................................
Prepare and Submit Initial Performance Report ..................................................................
Reporting on Performance Targets Progress ......................................................................
Prepare CMAQ Performance Plan .......................................................................................
Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving Performance Targets ................................
Adjust HPMS to Handle Data in TMC Format and Design Post-submission Reports ........
Data Processing (e.g., Data Verification) .............................................................................
Section 490.511—Calculation of Performance Metrics for NHS Performance ...........................
Calculate LOTTR ..................................................................................................................
Estimate Desired Level of PHTTR for All Roads .................................................................
Calculate PHTTR ..................................................................................................................
Section 490.513—Calculation of Performance Measure for NHS Performance ........................
Develop Reliability Performance Measures .........................................................................
Develop Travel Time Performance Measures .....................................................................
Section 490.611—Calculation of Performance Metrics for Freight Mobility ...............................
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Establish Process ................................................
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Update Average ...................................................
Calculate Truck Reliability: Establish Process .....................................................................
Calculate Truck Reliability: Update Metric ...........................................................................
Section 490.613—Calculation of Performance Measures for Freight Reliability ........................
Develop Freight Travel Time Performance Measures .........................................................
Develop Freight Reliability Performance Measures .............................................................
Section 490.711—Calculation of Performance Metric for CMAQ Congestion ............................
Calculate Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time .............................................................
Identify All 5-minute Bins with Travel Times Above the Threshold Speed and Calculate
Excessive Delay ................................................................................................................
Develop Hourly Traffic Volumes in Order to Weight Segments ..........................................
Finalize Weighted Metrics for Reporting ..............................................................................
Section 490.713—Calculation of Congestion Measure ...............................................................
Develop Congestion Performance Measure ........................................................................
Section 490.811—Calculation of Emissions Metric .....................................................................
Develop Emission Performance Metric for Some CMAQ Projects ......................................
Section 490.813—Calculation of Emissions Measure ................................................................
Develop Emission Performance Measure ............................................................................
$80,425,414
51,000,000
9,000,000
3,183,700
15,918,501
489,800
833,414
90,529,176
2,134,912
40,763,607
919,236
31,269,138
13,465,179
1,933,462
24,804
18,838
5,478,984
2,828,595
787,736
1,862,653
4,285,750
3,084,798
1,200,952
3,306,150
183,675
1,469,400
183,675
1,469,400
14,807,031
7,403,516
7,403,516
5,128,771
1,282,193
$56,794,724
35,820,266
6,321,223
2,236,098
11,180,489
457,757
778,891
63,693,723
2,134,912
29,114,925
919,236
21,219,453
9,137,563
1,132,171
23,181
12,282
3,897,015
1,961,095
654,465
1,281,455
3,111,923
2,239,901
872,023
2,407,408
171,659
1,032,045
171,659
1,032,045
10,751,525
5,375,762
5,375,762
3,710,508
927,627
$68,760,455
43,504,034
7,677,183
2,715,761
13,578,804
475,534
809,139
77,239,133
2,134,912
35,021,902
919,236
26,279,023
11,316,326
1,528,071
24,082
15,581
4,698,453
2,399,861
723,310
1,575,282
3,709,859
2,670,283
1,039,576
2,863,507
178,325
1,253,428
178,325
1,253,428
12,817,359
6,408,679
6,408,679
4,429,895
1,107,474
1,165,630
1,515,319
1,165,630
6,612,300
6,612,300
13,285,826
13,285,826
593,412
593,412
818,690
1,145,502
818,690
4,801,253
4,801,253
9,331,408
9,331,408
430,882
430,882
994,306
1,333,810
994,306
5,723,782
5,723,782
11,333,079
11,333,079
513,673
513,673
Total Cost of Proposed Rule .........................................................................................
224,452,815
158,930,370
192,089,196
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
The costs in Tables 14 and 15 assume
a portion of MPOs will establish their
own targets and a portion will adopt
State DOT targets. For the performance
measures that apply to all State DOTs
and MPOs (i.e., Travel Time Reliability
and Freight Movement), it is assumed
that State DOTs and MPOs serving
TMAs 104 would use staff to establish
performance targets and all other MPOs
would adopt State DOT targets rather
than establish their own targets and
would therefore not incur any
incremental costs. The FHWA made this
104 A Transportation Management Area (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
and FTA. 23 U.S.C. 134(k).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
Break-Even Analysis
Currently, State DOTs differ from
State to State in the way they evaluate
the performance of the NHS, congestion,
on-road mobile source emissions, and
freight movement. These differences
hinder accurate analysis at the national
level. The proposed rulemaking would
not only establish uniform performance
measures, but also would establish
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
some significant benefits that are not
easily monetized, but nonetheless
deserve mention in this analysis.
Specifically, the proposed rule would
allow for more informed
decisionmaking on congestion-,
freight-, and air-quality-related project,
program, and policy choices. The
proposed rule also would yield greater
accountability because the MAP–21mandated reporting would increase
visibility and transparency. In addition,
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23892
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the proposed rule would help focus the
Federal-aid highway program on
achieving balanced performance
outcomes.
The expected benefits discussed
above (i.e., more informed
decisionmaking, greater accountability,
and the focus on making progress
toward the national goal for
infrastructure condition) would lead to
an enhanced performance of the NHS
due to reduced congestion, improved
freight movement, and reduced
emissions. The benefits, while real and
substantial, are difficult to forecast and
monetize. Therefore, FHWA addresses
this issue by using the break-even
analysis method suggested by OMB
Circular A–4. Break-even analyses
calculate the threshold a specific
variable must achieve in order for
benefits to equal costs while holding
every other variable in the analysis
constant. The FHWA performed three
separate break-even analyses based on
the estimated costs associated with: (1)
Enhancing performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS by
relieving congestion; (2) reducing
emissions; and, (3) improving freight
movement.
• Section 490.109. Cost of assessing
significant progress for NHPP measures;
• Section 490.511. Cost of calculating
system performance metrics;
• Section 490.513. Cost of calculating
system performance measures;
• Section 490.711. Cost of calculating
congestion metric; and
• Section 490.713. Cost of calculating
congestion measure.
Table 15 presents the results from the
break-even analysis associated with
enhancing performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS under
Scenario 1 (i.e., FHWA provides
NPMRDS data to State DOTs).
The results represent the passenger
car travel time (in hours) that would
need to be saved in order to justify the
costs. The analysis shows that the
proposed rule would need to result in
approximately 354,000 hours of
passenger car travel time saved per year,
or 3.9 million hours over 11 years. To
provide context, private commuters in
498 urban areas across the United States
experience 5.5 billion hours of travel
delay per year. As a result, the reduction
represents a less than 0.01 percent
decrease in the amount of travel delay
per year for major U.S. urban areas.112
For the break-even analyses
associated with enhancing the
performance of the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS, the costs
associated with the following proposed
rule sections are summed together to
estimate the total cost of provisions
aimed at reducing congestion:
• Section 490.103. Sixty percent of
the cost 105 of obtaining data
requirements;
• Section 490.105. Approximately 63
percent of the cost 106 of establishing
performance targets;
• Section 490.107. Approximately 63
percent of the cost 107 of documenting
and submitting a description of
coordination between State DOTs and
MPOs;
• Section 490.107. Approximately 63
percent of the cost 108 of preparing and
submitting Initial Performance Reports;
• Section 490.107. Approximately 63
percent of the cost 109 of reporting
performance targets;
• Section 490.107. Half the cost 110 of
preparing CMAQ performance plan;
• Section 490.107. Sixty percent of
the cost 111 of adjusting HPMS and
processing data;
TABLE 15—BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM AND NON-INTERSTATE NHS PERFORMANCE (RELIABILITY,
PEAK HOUR TRAVEL TIME, AND CONGESTION) UNDER SCENARIO 1
Undiscounted 11-year costs
Average
commuter value
of time
($ per hour)
Number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
Average annual
number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
a
b
c=a÷b
d = c ÷ 11
$88,387,756 .....................................................................................................................
$22.72
3,891,103
353,737
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table 16 presents the results from the
break-even analysis associated with
enhancing performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS under
Scenario 2 (i.e., State DOTs
independently acquire the necessary
data). The results represent the
passenger car travel time (in hours) that
would need to be saved in order to
justify the costs. The analysis shows
that the proposed rule would need to
result in approximately 496,000 hours
of passenger car travel time saved per
year, or 5.5 million hours over 11 years.
To provide context, private commuters
in 498 urban areas across the United
States experience 5.5 billion hours of
travel delay per year. This reduction
represents a 0.01 percent decrease in the
amount of travel delay per year for
major U.S. urban areas.113
105 Sixty percent is assumed because three of the
five metrics (LOTTR, PHTTR, and Total Excessive
Delay) are calculated from NPMRDS and are aimed
at improving system performance and reducing
congestion.
106 Approximately 63 percent is assumed because
five of the eight performance measures (Reliability
on the Interstate System, Reliability on the nonInterstate NHS, Peak Hour Travel Time on the
Interstate System, Peak Hour Travel Time on the
non-Interstate NHS, and Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay Per Capita) are aimed at improving system
performance and reducing congestion.
107 Ibid.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
110 Fifty percent is assumed because one of the
two CMAQ performance measures (Annual Hours
of Excessive Delay Per Capita) is aimed at
improving system performance and reducing
congestion.
111 Sixty percent is assumed because three of the
five metrics (LOTTR, PHTTR, and Total Excessive
Delay) are aimed at improving system performance
and reducing congestion.
112 Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) ‘‘2012
Annual Urban Mobility Report,’’ 2013.
113 TTI’s ‘‘2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report,’’
2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23893
TABLE 16—BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM AND NON-INTERSTATE NHS PERFORMANCE (RELIABILITY,
PEAK HOUR TRAVEL TIME, AND CONGESTION) UNDER SCENARIO 2
Undiscounted 11-year costs
Average
commuter value
of time
($ per hour)
Number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
Average annual
number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
a
b
c=a÷b
d = c ÷ 11
$123,897,977 ...................................................................................................................
$22.72
5,454,373
495,852
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
Table 187 presents the results from
the break-even analysis associated with
the Freight Movement on the Interstate
System measures under Scenario 1 (i.e.,
FHWA provides NPMRDS data to State
DOTs and MPOs). The costs associated
with the following proposed rule
sections are summed together to
estimate the total cost of provisions
aimed at reducing freight congestion:
• Section 490.103. Forty percent of
the cost 114 of the data requirements;
• Section 490.105. Twenty-five
percent of the cost 115 of establishing
performance targets;
• Section 490.107. Twenty-five
percent of the cost 116 of documenting
• Section 490.613. Cost of calculating
freight movement measures.
The results represent the amount of
truck travel time (in hours) which
would need to be saved in order to
justify the costs associated with the
Freight Movement on the Interstate
System measures. The analysis shows
that the proposed rule would need to
result in approximately 168,000 hours
of freight travel time saved per year, or
1.8 million hours over 11 years. This
reduction represents a less than 0.1
percent decrease in the amount of
freight travel delay per year for major
U.S. urban areas.120
and submitting a description of
coordination between State DOTs and
MPOs;
• Section 490.107. Twenty-five
percent of the cost 117 of preparing and
submitting Initial Performance Reports;
• Section 490.107. Twenty-five
percent of the cost 118 of reporting
performance targets;
• Section 490.107. Forty percent of
the cost 119 of adjusting HPMS and
processing data;
• Section 490.109. Cost of assessing
significant progress for NHFP measures;
• Section 490.611. Cost of calculating
freight movement metrics; and
TABLE 17—BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS OF FREIGHT PERFORMANCE (FREIGHT RELIABILITY, AVERAGE TRUCK SPEED) UNDER
SCENARIO 1
Undiscounted 11-year costs
Average truck
value of time
($ per hour)
Number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
Average annual
number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
a
b
c=a÷b
d = c ÷ 11
$46,883,670 .....................................................................................................................
$25.36
1,848,481
168,044
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table 198 presents the results from
the break-even analysis associated with
the Freight Movement on the Interstate
System measures under Scenario 2 (i.e.,
State DOTs independently acquire the
necessary data). The results represent
the amount of truck travel time (in
114 Forty percent is assumed because two of the
five metrics (Truck Travel Time Reliability and
Average Truck Speed) calculated from NPMRDS are
aimed at freight movement.
115 Twenty-five percent is assumed because two
of the eight performance measures (Freight
Movement Reliability and Average Truck Speed)
are aimed at reducing truck congestion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
hours) which would need to be saved in
order to justify the costs associated with
the Freight Movement on the Interstate
System measures. The analysis shows
that the proposed rule would need to
result in approximately 253,000 hours
of freight travel time saved per year, or
116 Ibid.
117 Ibid.
118 Ibid.
119 Forty percent is assumed because two of the
five metrics (Truck Travel Time Reliability and
Average Truck Speed) calculated from NPMRDS are
aimed at freight movement.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2.8 million hours over 11 years. This
reduction represents a 0.1 percent
decrease in the amount of freight travel
delay per year for major U.S. urban
areas.121
120 Trucks in 498 urban areas across the U.S.
experience 353.1 million hours of travel delay per
year, according to the TTI’s ‘‘2012 Annual Urban
Mobility Report,’’ 2013.
121 Trucks in 498 urban areas across the U.S.
experience 353.1 million hours of travel delay per
year, according to the TTI’s ‘‘2012 Annual Urban
Mobility Report,’’ 2013.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23894
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 18—BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS OF FREIGHT PERFORMANCE (FREIGHT RELIABILITY, AVERAGE TRUCK SPEED) UNDER
SCENARIO 2
Undiscounted 11-year costs
Average truck
value of time
($ per hour)
Number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
Average annual
number of hours
of travel that
need to be
reduced
a
b
c=a÷b
d = c ÷ 11
$70,557,150 .....................................................................................................................
$25.36
2,781,855
252,896
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
Table 19 presents the results from the
break-even analysis to estimate the
reduction in pollutant tons 122 needed to
be achieved in order to justify the costs
associated with the Emissions
performance measures. The costs
associated with the following proposed
rule sections are summed together to
estimate the total cost of provisions
aimed at reducing emissions:
• Section 490.105. Approximately 13
percent of the cost 123 of establishing
performance targets;
• Section 490.107. Approximately 13
percent of the cost 124 of documenting
and submitting a description of
coordination between State DOTs and
MPOs;
• Section 490.107. Approximately 13
percent of the cost 125 of preparing and
submitting Initial Performance Reports;
• Section 490.107. Approximately 13
percent of the cost 126 of reporting
performance targets;
• Section 490.107. Half the cost 127 of
preparing CMAQ performance plan;
• Section 490.811. Cost of calculating
emissions metric; and
• Section 490.813. Cost of calculating
emissions measure.
The costs associated with the
Emissions performance measure are
identical under Scenario 1 and Scenario
2 because State DOTs would not need
data from NPMRDS. Therefore, FHWA
presents one set of results.
With the undiscounted cost of the onroad mobile source emissions
requirements, the analysis estimates the
savings in emission tons from
automobiles that the proposed rule
would need to save in order for the
proposed rule to be cost-beneficial. The
break-even analysis estimates that a
total of 49,000 emission tons would
need to be reduced throughout the 10year study period, or approximately
4,000 tons annually. On a pollutantspecific basis, this is approximately
equivalent to 410 tons of VOCs, 275 tons
of NOX, two tons of PM2.5, and 3,730
tons of CO. These reductions represent
less than 0.01 percent of the average
annual pollutant emission amounts.128
TABLE 19—BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS (REDUCED POLLUTANTS) USING EMISSION TON METRIC
Undiscounted 11-year costs
Average
emission
ton cost
($ per long ton)
Number of
emissions tons
needed to
be reduced
Average annual
number of
emissions tons
needed to
be reduced
a
b
c=a÷b
d = c ÷ 11
$29,997,688 .....................................................................................................................
$617.38
48,589
4,417
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. 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 amendment
addresses the obligation of Federal
funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid
highway projects. The proposed rule
122 Includes
VOCs, NOX, PM2.5, and CO.
13 percent is assumed because
one of the eight performance measures (Total
Emissions Reduction) is aimed at reducing
emissions.
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid.
123 Approximately
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
affects two types of entities: State
governments and MPOs. State
governments do not meet the definition
of a small entity under 5 U.S.C. 601,
which have a population of less than
50,000.
The MPOs are considered
governmental jurisdictions, and to
qualify as a small entity they would
need to serve less than 50,000 people.
The MPOs serve urbanized areas with
populations of 50,000 or more. As
discussed in the RIA, the proposed rule
is expected to impose costs on MPOs
that serve populations exceeding
200,000. Therefore, the MPOs that incur
economic impacts under this proposed
rule do not meet the definition of a
small entity.
I hereby certify that this regulatory
action would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
127 Fifty percent is assumed because one of the
two CMAQ performance measures (Total Emissions
Reduction) is aimed at reducing emissions.
128 In 2011, emissions by highway vehicles
totaled 3 million tons VOCs, 4.1 million tons NOX,
183,000 tons PM2.5, and 34.2 million tons CO.
Source: EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, summary data, included in EPA
Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2012 (https://
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/
usinventoryreport/archive.html), and EPA,
‘‘National Emissions Inventory: Air Pollutant
Emissions Trends Data,’’ 2012, document posted to
the Docket. Because these estimates are updated
over time, there are variations in these data yearto-year. The FHWA will update the data at the Final
Rule stage.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The FHWA has determined that this
NPRM does 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 include 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.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism
Assessment)
The FHWA has analyzed this NPRM
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. The FHWA has determined that
this action does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism assessment.
The FHWA has also determined that
this action does not preempt any State
law or State regulation or affect the
States’ ability to discharge traditional
State governmental functions.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to
this program. Local entities should refer
to the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction, for
further information.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the OMB for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. The DOT
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
performance elements of this NPRM.
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
May 2015 and CMAQ Program OMB
2125–0614 with an expiration date of
(INSERT DATE) -. Any increase in PRA
burdens caused by MAP–21 in these
areas will be addressed in PRA approval
requests associated with those
rulemakings.
This rulemaking requires the
submittal of performance reports. The
DOT has analyzed this proposed rule
under the PRA and has determined the
following:
Respondents: Approximately 262
applicants consisting of State DOTs and
MPOs.
Frequency: Biennially.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: Approximately 416 hours to
complete and submit the report.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: Approximately 65,312 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.
G. 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).
23895
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 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.
K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action
under Executive Order 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 State DOTs for Federalaid highway projects and would not
impose any direct compliance
requirements on Indian tribal
governments. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not
required.
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has
determined that this is not a significant
energy action under that order and is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required.
H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
The FHWA has analyzed this
proposed rule under Executive Order
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 Executive Order
12630.
M. 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.
I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This action meets applicable
standards in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
N. Privacy Impact Assessment
The FHWA continues to assess the
privacy impacts of this proposed rule as
required by section 522(a)(5) of the FY
2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23896
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Public Law 108–447, 118 Stat. 3268
(December 8, 2004) [set out as a note to
5 U.S.C. 552a].
The FHWA is proposing the use of the
new NPMRDS as the data source to
calculate the metrics for the seven travel
time/speed based measures to ensure
consistency and coverage at a national
level. This private sector data set
provides average travel times derived
from vehicle/passenger probe data
traveling on the NHS. The FHWA
recognizes that probe data is an evolving
field and we will continue to evaluate
the privacy risks associated with its use.
O. Regulation Identifier Number
An RIN is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory
Information Service Center publishes
the Unified Agenda in April and
October of each year. The RIN number
contained in the heading of this
document can be used to cross-reference
this action with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490
Bridges, Highway safety, Highways
and roads, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington DC, on April 1, 2016,
under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing,
FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part
490 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:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 and the National Highway
Freight Program.
490.111 Incorporation by reference.
§ 490.101
Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified, the
following definitions apply to the entire
part 490:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Attainment area as used in this Part
is defined in § 450.104 of this title,
Transportation Planning and
Programming Definitions.
Criteria pollutant means any pollutant
for which there is established a NAAQS
at 40 CFR part 50. The transportation
related criteria pollutants per 40 CFR
93.102(b)(1) are carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Freight bottleneck, as used in part
490, is defined as a segment of the
Interstate System not meeting
thresholds for freight reliability and
congestion, as identified in § 490.613
and any other locations the State DOT
wishes to identify as a bottleneck based
on its own freight plans or related
documents, if applicable.
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
traveled by through traffic.
Maintenance area as used in this Part
is defined in § 450.104 of this title,
Transportation Planning and
Programming Definitions.
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.
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) as used in this Part is defined in
§ 450.104 of this title, Transportation
Planning and Programming Definitions.
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) as used in this Part
is defined in § 450.104 of this title,
Transportation Planning and
Programming Definitions.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
bridges, that are subject to the National
Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).
National Performance Management
Research Data Set (NPMRDS) means a
data set derived from vehicle/passenger
probe data (sourced from GPS,
navigation units, cell phones) that
includes average travel times
representative of all traffic on each
segment of the National Highway
System (NHS), and additional travel
times representative of freight trucks for
those segments that are on the Interstate
System. The data set includes records
that contain average travel times for
every 5 minutes of every day (24 hours)
of the year recorded and calculated for
every travel time segment where probe
data is available. The NPMRDS does not
include any imputed travel time data.
Nonattainment area as used in this
Part is defined in § 450.104 of this title,
Transportation Planning and
Programming Definitions.
Non-urbanized area means a single
geographic area that comprises all of the
areas in the State that are not
‘‘urbanized areas’’ under 23 U.S.C.
101(a)(34).
Performance period means a
determined time period during which
condition/performance is measured and
evaluated to: Assess condition/
performance with respect to baseline
condition/performance; and 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).
Reporting segment means the length
of roadway that the State DOT and
MPOs define for metric calculation and
reporting and is comprised of one or
more Travel Time Segments.
Target means a quantifiable level of
performance or condition, expressed as
a value for the measure, to be achieved
within a time period required by the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA).
Transportation Management Area
(TMA) as used in this Part is defined in
§ 450.104 of this title, Transportation
Planning and Programming Definitions.
Travel time data set means either the
NPMRDS or an equivalent data set that
is used by State DOTs and MPOs as
approved by FHWA, to carry out the
requirements in Subparts E, F, and G of
Part 490.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Travel time reliability means the
consistency or dependability of travel
times from day to day or across different
times of the day.
Travel time segment means a
contiguous stretch of the NHS for which
average travel time data are summarized
in the travel time data set.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 490.103
Data requirements.
(a) In General.—Unless otherwise
noted below, the data requirements in
this section applies to the measures
identified in Subparts C through H of
this part. Additional data requirements
for specific performance management
measures are identified in 23 CFR
sections—
(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) 490.509 for the performance of the
Interstate System;
(5) 490.509 for the performance of the
non-Interstate NHS;
(6) 490.609 for the freight movement
on the Interstate System;
(7) 490.709 for traffic congestion; and
(8) 490.809 for on-road mobile source
emissions.
(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), and establishment and
reporting on targets for the Peak Hour
Travel Time measures in § 490.507(b)
and the traffic congestion measure in
§ 490.707. 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) Nonattainment and Maintenance
areas data—The State DOTs shall use
the nonattainment and maintenance
areas boundaries based on the effective
date of U.S. EPA designations in 40 CFR
part 81 at the time when the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is
due to FHWA.
(d) National Highway System data.—
The State DOTs shall document and
submit the extent of the NHS in
accordance with the HPMS Field
Manual.
(e) Travel Time Data Set.—Travel
time data needed to calculate the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
measures in Subparts E, F, and G of this
part will come from the NPMRDS,
unless the State DOT requests, and
FHWA approves, the use of an
equivalent data source(s) that meets the
requirements of this section. In
accordance with 490.103(g), the State
DOT shall establish, in coordination
with applicable MPOs, a single travel
time data set (i.e., NPMRDS or
equivalent data set) that will be used to
calculate the annual metrics proposed
in Subparts E, F, and G. The same data
source shall be used for each year in a
performance period. A State DOT and
MPO(s) must use the same travel time
data set for each reporting segment for
the purposes of calculating the metrics
and measures. The use of equivalent
data source(s) shall comply with the
following:
(1) State DOTs and MPOs shall use
the same equivalent data source(s) for a
calendar year; and
(2) The State DOT shall request
FHWA approve the use of equivalent
data source(s) no later than October 1st
prior to the beginning of the calendar
year in which the data source would be
used to calculate metrics and FHWA
would need to approve the use of that
data source prior to a State DOT and
MPO(s)’s implementation and use of
that data source; and
(3) The State DOT shall make the
equivalent data source(s) available to
FHWA, on request; and
(4) The State DOT shall maintain and
use a documented data quality plan to
routinely check the quality and
accuracy of data contained within the
equivalent data source(s); and
(5) The equivalent data source(s)
shall:
(i) Be used by both the State DOT and
all MPOs within the State for all
applicable travel time segments;
(ii) In combination with or in place of
NPMRDS data, include:
(A) Contiguous segments that cover
the full NHS, as defined in 23 U.S.C.
103, within the State and MPO
boundary;
(B) Average travel times for at least
the same number of 5 minute intervals
and the same locations that would be
available in the NPMRDS;
(iii) Be populated with actual
measured vehicle travel times and shall
not be populated with travel times
derived from imputed (historic travel
times or other estimates) methods;
(iv) Include, for each segment at 5
minute intervals throughout a full day
(24 hours) for each day of the year, the
average travel time, recorded to the
nearest second, representative of at least
one of the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23897
(A) All traffic on each segment of the
NHS;
(B) Freight vehicle traffic on each
segment of the Interstate System;
(v) Include, for each segment, a
recording of the time and date of each
5 minute travel time record;
(vi) Include the location (route,
direction, State), length and begin and
end points of each segment; and
(vii) Be available within 60 days of
measurement.
(f) State DOTs, in coordination with
MPOs, shall define a single set of
reporting segments of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS for the
purpose of calculating the measures
specified in § 490.507, § 490.607, and
§ 490.707 in accordance with the
following:
(1) Reporting segments shall be
comprised of one or more contiguous
Travel Time Segments of same travel
direction;
(2) Reporting segments shall not
exceed 1⁄2 mile in length in urbanized
areas unless an individual Travel Time
Segment is longer, and 10 miles in
length in non-urbanized areas unless an
individual Travel Time Segment is
longer; and
(3) All reporting segments collectively
shall be contiguous and cover the full
extent of the directional mainline
highways of the Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS required for
reporting the measure.
(g) State DOTs shall submit their
defined reporting segments to FHWA no
later than November 1st prior to the
beginning of a calendar year. If a State
DOT is using an approved equivalent
travel time data source during the
performance period, the State DOT shall
resubmit a new set of defined reporting
segments that corresponds to the
equivalent travel time data source. The
State DOT shall submit the following to
FHWA in HPMS:
(1) The Travel Time segment/s that
make up each reporting segment; and
(2) The route and length (to the
nearest thousandth of a mile) of each
reporting segment; and
(3) The Desired Peak Period Travel
Times (both morning and evening) that
will be used to calculate the Peak Hour
Travel Time measures identified in
§ 490.507(b) for each reporting segment
that is fully included within urbanized
areas with populations over one million.
(4) Documentation of the State DOT
and applicable MPOs coordination and
agreement on the travel time data set,
the defined reporting segments, and the
desired travel times submitted.
(5) If the defined reporting segments
contain segments using equivalent data
set, in part or in whole, all reporting
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23898
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
segment shall be referenced by HPMS
location referencing standards.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 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 the respective target
scope identified in paragraph (d) with
the requirements specified in paragraph
(e), 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)
with the requirements specified in
paragraph (f).
(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 or area shall establish
performance targets for the performance
measures identified in 23 CFR
sections—
(1) 490.307(a)(1) and 490.307(a)(2) for
the condition of pavements on the
Interstate System;
(2) 490.307(a)(3) and 490.307(a)(4) for
the condition of pavements on the
National Highway System (NHS)
(excluding the Interstate);
(3) 490.407(c)(1) and 490.407(c)(2) for
the condition of bridges on the NHS;
(4) 490.507(a)(1) and 490.507(a)(2) for
the NHS travel time reliability;
(5) 490.507(b)(1) and 490.507(b)(2) for
the peak hour travel time;
(6) 490.607(a) and 490.607(b) for the
freight movement on the Interstate
System;
(7) 490.707 for traffic congestion; and
(8) 490.807 for on-road mobile source
emissions.
(d) Target scope.—Targets established
by the State DOT and MPO shall,
regardless of ownership, represent the
transportation network or geographic
area, including bridges that cross State
borders, that are applicable to the
measures as specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) State DOTs and MPOs shall
establish Statewide and metropolitan
planning area wide targets, respectively,
that represent the condition/
performance of the transportation
network or geographic area that are
applicable to the measures, as specified
in 23 CFR sections—
(i) 490.303 for the condition of
pavements on the Interstate System
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
measures specified in § 490.307(a)(1)
and § 490.307(a)(2);
(ii) 490.303 for the condition of
pavements on the National Highway
System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate)
measures specified in § 490.307(a)(3)
and § 490.307(a)(4);
(iii) 490.403 for the condition of
bridges on the NHS measures specified
in § 490.407(c)(1) and § 490.407(c)(2);
(iv) 490.503(a)(1) for NHS travel time
reliability measures specified in
§ 490.507(a)(1) and § 490.507(a)(2);
(v) 490.603 for the freight movement
on the Interstate System measures
specified in § 490.607(a) and
§ 490.607(b); and
(vi) 490.803 for the on-road mobile
source emissions measure identified in
§ 490.807.
(2) State DOTs and MPOs shall
establish a single urbanized area target
that represents the performance of the
transportation network in each area
applicable to the measures, as specified
in 23 CFR sections—
(i) 490.503(a)(2) for the peak hour
travel time measures identified in
§ 490.507(b)(1) and § 490.507(b)(2); and
(ii) 490.703 for the traffic congestion
measure identified in § 490.707.
(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 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.
(3) Additional targets for urbanized
and non-urbanized areas.—In addition
to statewide targets, described in
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
(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
§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
(v) Additional targets for urbanized
areas and the non-urbanized area are not
applicable to the peak hour travel time
measures, traffic congestion measures,
and on-road mobile source emissions
measures in paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(7),
and (c)(8) of this section, respectively.
(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 1st 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 (c)(7) of this
section; and
(B) October 1st of the year prior to
which the Baseline Performance Report
is due to FHWA and will extend for a
duration of 4 years for the measure in
paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
(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) Except as provided in paragraphs
(e)(7) and (e)(8)(vi) of this section, State
DOTs shall establish 2-year targets that
reflect the anticipated condition/
performance level at the midpoint of
each performance period for the
measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(7) of this section, and the anticipated
cumulative emissions reduction to be
reported for the first 2 years of a
performance period by applicable
criteria pollutant and precursor for the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
measure in paragraph (c)(8) of this
section.
(iv) State DOTs shall establish 4-year
targets that reflect the anticipated
condition/performance level at the end
of each performance period for the
measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(7) of this section, and the anticipated
cumulative emissions reduction to be
reported for the entire performance
period by applicable criteria pollutant
and precursor for the measure in
paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
(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
in the Mid Performance Period Progress
Report, as described in § 490.107(b)(2).
Any adjustments made to 4-year targets
established for the peak hour travel time
measure specified in paragraph (c)(5) or
traffic congestion measure in paragraph
(c)(7) of this section shall be agreed
upon and made collectively by all State
DOTs and MPOs that include any
portion of the NHS in the respective
urbanized area applicable to the
measure.
(7) Phase-in of new requirements for
Interstate System pavement condition
measures and the non-Interstate NHS
travel time reliability measures.—The
following requirements apply only to
the first performance period and to the
measures in §§ 490.307(a)(1) and (2) and
§ 490.507(a)(2):
(i) State DOTs shall establish their 4year targets, required under paragraph
(4)(iv), 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 use the 2-year
condition/performance in their Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
described in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A) as the
baseline condition/performance. State
DOTs may also adjust their 4-year
targets, as appropriate.
(iv) State DOTs shall annually report
metrics for all mainline highways on the
NHS throughout the performance
period, as required in § 490.511(d).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
(8) Urbanized area specific targets.—
The following requirements apply to
establishing targets for the peak hour
travel time measures specified in
paragraph (c)(5) and traffic congestion
measure in paragraph (c)(7) of this
section, as their target scope provided in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
(i) State DOTs, with mainline
highways on the Interstate System that
cross any part of an urbanized area with
a population more than 1 million within
its geographic State boundary, shall
establish target for the measure
specified in § 490.507(b)(1) for the
urbanized area. State DOTs, with
mainline highways on the non-Interstate
NHS that cross any part of an urbanized
area with a population more than 1
million within its geographic State
boundary, shall establish target for the
measure specified in § 490.507(b)(2) for
the urbanized area.
(ii) If any part of the urbanized area
for either of the peak hour travel time
measures, provided for in paragraph (i)
of this section, contains any part of a
nonattainment or maintenance area for
any one of the criteria pollutants, as
specified in § 490.703, then that State
DOT shall establish targets for the
measure specified in § 490.707.
(iii) If required to establish a target for
a peak-hour travel time measure, as
described in paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this
section and/or a target for a traffic
congestion measure, as described in
paragraph (e)(8)(ii), State DOTs shall
comply with the following:
(A) For each urbanized area, only one
2-year target and one 4-year target for
the entire urbanized area shall be
established regardless of roadway
ownership.
(B) For each urbanized area, all State
DOTs and MPOs that contain, within
their respective boundaries, any portion
of the NHS network in that urbanized
area shall agree on one 2-year and one
4-year target for that urbanized area. The
targets reported, in accordance with
§ 490.105(e)(5) and § 490.105(f)(7), by
the State DOTs and MPOs for that
urbanized area shall be identical.
(C) State DOTs shall meet all
reporting requirements in § 490.107 for
the entire performance period even if
there is a change of population, NHS
designation, or nonattainment/
maintenance area designation during
that performance period.
(D) The 1 million population
threshold, in paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this
section, shall be determined based on
the most recent U.S. Decennial Census
available at the time when the State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23899
(E) NHS designations, in paragraphs
(e)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be
determined from the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report required in
§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E).
(F) The designation of nonattainment
or maintenance areas, in paragraph of
(ii) of this section, shall be determined
based on the effective date of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
designation under the NAAQS in 40
CFR part 81 at the time when the State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
(iv) If a State DOT does not meet the
criteria specified in paragraph (e)(8)(i) of
this section for both peak-hour travel
time measures at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA, then that State
DOT is not required to establish targets
for traffic congestion measure for that
performance period.
(v) If a State DOT does not meet the
criteria specified in paragraph (ii) at the
time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to
FHWA, then that State DOT is not
required to establish targets for the
traffic congestion measure for that
performance period.
(vi) The following requirements apply
only to the first performance period and
the traffic congestion measure in
§ 490.707:
(A) State DOTs shall establish their 4year targets, required under paragraph
§ 490.105(e)(4)(iv), and report these
targets in their Baseline Performance
Period Report, required under
§ 490.107(b)(1);
(B) State DOTs shall not report 2-year
targets, described in § 490.105(e)(4)(ii)
of this section, and baseline condition/
performance in their Baseline
Performance Period Report; and
(C) State DOTs shall use the 2-year
condition/performance in their Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
described in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A) as the
baseline condition/performance. The
established baseline condition/
performance shall be collectively
developed and agreed upon with
relevant MPOs.
(D) State DOTs may, as appropriate,
adjust their 4-year target(s) in their Mid
Performance Period Progress Report,
described in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A).
Adjusted 4-year target(s) shall be
developed and collectively agreed upon
with relevant MPO(s), as described in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
(E) State DOTs shall annually report
metrics for all mainline highways on the
NHS for all applicable urbanized area(s)
throughout the performance period, as
required in § 490.711(f).
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23900
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(9) Targets for on-road mobile source
emissions measure.—The following
requirements apply to establishing
targets for the measures specified in
paragraph (c)(8) of this section:
(i) The State DOTs shall establish
statewide targets for the on-road mobile
source emissions measure for all
nonattainment and maintenance areas
for all applicable criteria pollutants and
precursors specified in § 490.803.
(ii) For all nonattainment and
maintenance areas within the State
geographic boundary, the State DOT
shall establish separate statewide targets
for each of the applicable criteria
pollutants and precursors.
(iii) The established targets, as
specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this
section, shall reflect the anticipated
cumulative emissions reduction to be
reported in the CMAQ Public Access
System required in § 490.809(a).
(iv) In addition to the statewide
targets in paragraph (e)(9)(i) of this
section, State DOTs may, as appropriate,
establish additional targets for any
number and combination of
nonattainment and maintenance areas
by applicable criteria pollutant within
the geographic boundary of the State. If
a State DOT establishes additional
targets for nonattainment and
maintenance areas, it shall report the
targets in the Baseline Performance
Period Report required by
§ 490.107(b)(1). State DOTs shall
evaluate separately the progress of each
of these additional targets and report
that progress as required under
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and
§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
(v) The designation of nonattainment
or maintenance areas shall be
determined based on the effective date
of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s designation under the NAAQS
in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
(vi) The State DOT shall meet all
reporting requirements in § 490.107 for
the entire performance period even if
there is a change of nonattainment or
maintenance area designation status
during that performance period.
(vii) If a State geographic boundary
does not contain any part of
nonattainment or maintenance areas for
applicable criteria pollutants and
precursors at the time when the State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA, then that State
DOT is not required to establish targets
for on-road mobile source emissions
measures for that performance period.
(f) The MPOs shall establish targets
for each of the performance measures
identified in paragraph (c) of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
section for the 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, as provided 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)
and (d) of this section.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph
(f)(4)(vi) of this section, the MPOs shall
establish 2-year targets, described in
paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section for
the peak hour travel time, traffic
congestion and on-road source
emissions measures, described in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section as
their applicability criteria described in
paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and
(f)(5)(iii) of this section, respectively.
(iii) If an MPO does not meet the
criteria described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i),
(f)(4)(ii), or (f)(5)(iii) of this section, the
MPO is not required to establish 2-year
target(s) for the corresponding
measure(s).
(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) Target establishment options.—For
each performance measure identified in
paragraph (c) of this section, except the
peak hour travel time measures, the
traffic congestion measure, and MPOs
meeting the criteria under paragraph
(5)(iii) for on-road mobile source
emission measure, the MPOs shall
establish a target by either:
(i) Agreeing to plan and program
projects so that they contribute toward
the accomplishment of the relevant
State DOT target for that performance
measure; or
(ii) Committing to a quantifiable target
for that performance measure for their
metropolitan planning area.
(4) Urbanized area specific targets.—
The following requirements apply to
establishing targets for the peak hour
travel time measures specified in
paragraph (c)(5) and traffic congestion
measure in paragraph (c)(7) of this
section, as their target scope provided in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
(i) MPOs shall establish targets for the
measure specified in § 490.507(b)(1)
when mainline highways on the
Interstate System within their
metropolitan planning area boundary
cross any part of an urbanized area with
a population more than 1 million. MPOs
shall establish targets for the measure
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specified in § 490.507(b)(2) when
mainline highways on the non-Interstate
NHS within their metropolitan planning
area boundary cross any part of an
urbanized area with a population more
than 1 million.
(ii) MPOs shall establish targets for
the measure specified in § 490.707 when
mainline highways on the NHS within
their metropolitan planning area
boundary cross any part of an urbanized
area with a population more than 1
million, and that portion of their
metropolitan planning area boundary
also contains any portion of a
nonattainment or maintenance area for
any one of the criteria pollutants, as
specified in § 490.703. If an MPO is not
required to establish a target for the
measure specified in § 490.707, but any
part of the urbanized area for either of
the peak hour travel time measures,
provided for in paragraph (i) of this
section, contains any part of a
nonattainment or maintenance area for
any one of the criteria pollutant, as
specified in § 490.703, then that MPO
should coordinate with relevant State
DOT(s) and MPO(s) in the target
establishment process for the measure
specified in § 490.707.
(iii) If required to establish a target for
a peak-hour travel time measure, as
described in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this
section and/or traffic congestion
measure, as described in paragraph
(f)(4)(ii), MPOs shall comply with the
following:
(A) For each urbanized area, only one
2-year target and one 4-year target for
the entire urbanized area shall be
established regardless of roadway
ownership.
(B) For each urbanized area, all State
DOTs and MPOs that contain, within
their respective boundaries, any portion
of the NHS network in that urbanized
area shall agree on one 2-year and one
4-year target for that urbanized area. The
targets reported, in accordance with
§ 490.105(e)(5) and § 490.105(f)(7), by
the State DOTs and MPOs for that
urbanized area shall be identical.
(C) MPOs shall meet all reporting
requirements in § 490.107(c) for the
entire performance period even if there
is a change of population, NHS
designation, or nonattainment/
maintenance area designation status
during that performance period.
(D) The 1 million population
threshold, in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this
section, shall be determined based on
the most recent U.S. Decennial Census
available at the time when the State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
(E) NHS designations, in paragraphs
(f)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
determined from the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report required in
§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E).
(F) The designation of nonattainment
or maintenance areas, in paragraph
(f)(4)(ii) of this section, shall be
determined based on the effective date
of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s designation under the NAAQS
in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
(iv) If an MPO does not meet the
criteria specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of
this section at the time when the State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA, then that MPO
is not required to establish targets for
the peak hour travel time measure for
that performance period.
(v) If an MPO does not meet the
criteria specified in paragraph (f)(4)(ii)
of this section at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA, then that MPO
is not required to establish targets for
the traffic congestion measure for that
performance period.
(vi) The following requirements apply
only to the first performance period and
the traffic congestion measure in
§ 490.707:
(A) The MPOs shall not report 2-year
targets, described in paragraph
(f)(4)(iii)(A) of this section,
(B) The MPOs shall use the 2-year
condition/performance in State DOT
Mid Performance Period Progress
Report, described in
§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A) as baseline
condition/performance. The established
baseline condition/performance shall be
agreed upon and made collectively with
relevant State DOTs.
(C) The MPOs may, as appropriate,
adjust their 4-year target(s). Adjusted 4year target(s) shall be collectively
developed and agreed upon with all
relevant State DOT(s), as described in
paragraph (f)(7) of this section.
(5) Targets for on-road mobile source
emissions measures.—The following
requirements apply to establishing
targets for the measure in paragraph
(c)(8) of this section:
(i) The MPO shall establish targets for
each of the applicable criteria pollutants
and precursors, specified in § 490.803,
for which it is in nonattainment or
maintenance, within its metropolitan
planning area boundary.
(ii) The established targets, as
specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this
section, shall reflect the anticipated
cumulative emissions reduction to be
reported in the CMAQ Public Access
System required in § 490.809(a).
(iii) If any part of a designated
nonattainment and maintenance area
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
within the metropolitan planning area
overlaps the boundary of an urbanized
area with a population more than 1
million in population, then that MPO
shall establish both 2-year and 4-year
targets for their metropolitan planning
area.
(iv) For the nonattainment and
maintenance areas within the
metropolitan planning area that do not
meet the criteria in paragraph (f)(5)(iii)
of this section, MPOs shall establish 4year targets for their metropolitan
planning area, as described in paragraph
(f)(3) of this section.
(v) The designation of nonattainment
or maintenance areas shall be
determined based on the effective date
of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s designation under the NAAQS
in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA.
(vi) The MPO shall meet all reporting
requirements in § 490.107(c) for the
entire performance period even if there
is a change of nonattainment or
maintenance area designation status or
population during that performance
period.
(vii) If a metropolitan planning area
boundary does not contain any part of
nonattainment or maintenance areas for
applicable criteria pollutants and
precursors at the time when the State
DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA, then that MPO
is not require to establish targets for onroad mobile source emissions measures
for that performance period.
(6) MPO response to State DOT target
adjustment.—For the established targets
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, if the
State DOT adjusts a 4-year target in the
State DOT’s Mid Performance Period
Progress Report and if, for that
respective target, the MPO established a
target by supporting the State DOT
target as allowed under paragraph
(f)(3)(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 for that performance
measure; or
(ii) Commit to a new quantifiable
target for that performance measure for
its metropolitan planning area.
(7) Target adjustment.—If the MPO
establishes its target by committing to a
quantifiable target, described in
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section or
establishes target(s) for on-road source
emissions measure required in
paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this section, then
the MPOs may adjust its target(s) in a
manner that is collectively developed,
documented, and mutually agreed upon
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23901
by the State DOT and MPO. Any
adjustments made to 4-year targets,
established for the peak hour travel time
measure or traffic congestion measure in
paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section,
shall be collectively developed and
agreed upon by all State DOTs and
MPOs that include any portion of the
NHS in the respective urbanized area
applicable to the measure.
(8) 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.
(4) Initial State Performance Report.—
State DOTs shall submit an Initial
Performance Report to FHWA by
October 1, 2016, that includes the
following information:
(i) The condition/performance of the
NHS in the State for measures where the
State DOT is required to establish
targets and where data is available;
(ii) The effectiveness of the
investment strategy document in the
State asset management plan for the
National Highway System;
(iii) Progress toward targets the State
DOT are to establish, which may only be
a description of how State DOTs are
coordinating with relevant MPOs and
other agencies in target selection for the
targets to be reported in the first State
Biennial Performance Report in 2018;
and
(iv) The ways in which the State is
addressing congestion at freight
bottlenecks, including those identified
in the National Freight Strategic Plan,
within the State.
(5) State DOTs shall report initial 2year and 4-year targets, as described in
§ 490.105(e)(4), to FHWA within 30
days of target establishment by either
amending the Initial State Performance
Report due in October 2016, or through
the Baseline Performance Report for the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23902
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
first performance period, as described in
§ 490.107(b)(1)(i), whichever comes
first.
(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), (b)(2), and (b)(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, 2018, 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.—2-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 beginning date of
the performance period specified in
§ 490.105(e)(4)(i) 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 HPMS;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
(F) Congestion at freight
bottlenecks.—Discussion on the ways in
which the State DOT is addressing
congestion at freight bottlenecks within
the State, including those identified in
the National Freight Strategic Plan, and
any additional locations that the State
DOT wishes to include as identified
through comprehensive freight
improvement efforts of Statewide
Freight Planning or MPO freight plans;
the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program and
Transportation Improvement Program;
regional or corridor level efforts; other
related planning efforts; and operational
and capital activities targeted to
improve freight movement on the
Interstate System;
(G) Nonattainment and maintenance
area for targets.—Where applicable, for
the purpose of determining target scope
in § 490.105(d) and any additional
targets under § 490.105(e)(9)(iv), State
DOTs shall describe the boundaries of
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s designated nonattainment and
maintenance areas, as described in
§ 490.103(c) and § 490.105(e)(9)(v):
(H) MPO CMAQ Performance Plan.—
Where applicable, State DOTs shall
include as an attachment the MPO
CMAQ Performance Plan, described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(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, 2020,
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) 2-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
reported target required in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
(B) 2-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 (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section, with the
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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) Congestion at freight
bottlenecks.—Discussion on progress of
the State DOT’s efforts in addressing
congestion at freight bottlenecks within
the State, as described in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(F) of this section;
(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) 2-year significant progress
discussion for the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) targets
and the National Highway Freight
Program (NHFP) targets.—State DOTs
shall discuss the progress they have
made toward the achievement of all 2year targets established for the NHPP
measures in § 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(5) and NHFP measures in
490.105(c)(6). 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
applicable measures;
(G) Extenuating Circumstances
discussion on 2-year Targets.—When
applicable, for 2-year targets for the
NHPP or NHFP, 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 or NHFP
target(s) in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) of this
section;
(H) Applicable Target Achievement
Discussion.—If FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement of any
NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial
FHWA determination, then the State
DOT shall include a description of the
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
actions they will undertake to achieve
those targets as required under
§ 490.109(f). If FHWA determines under
§ 490.109(e) that the State DOT has
made significant progress for NHPP or
NHFP targets, then the State DOT does
not need to include this description for
those targets; and
(I) MPO CMAQ Performance Plan.—
Where applicable, State DOTs shall
include as an attachment the MPO
CMAQ Performance Plan, described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(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, 2022, 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) 4-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) 4-year progress in achieving
performance targets.—A discussion of
the State DOT’s progress made toward
achieving each established 4-year target
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(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 paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (b)(1)(ii)(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) Congestion at freight
bottlenecks.—Discussion on progress of
the State DOT’s efforts in addressing
congestion at freight bottlenecks within
the State, as described in paragraph
(1)(ii)(F) of this section;
(E) 4-year significant progress
evaluation for applicable targets.—State
DOTs shall discuss the progress they
have made toward the achievement of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
all 4-year targets established for the
NHPP measures in § 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(5) and NHFP measures in
§ 490.105(c)(6). 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 those
measures;
(F) Extenuating circumstances
discussion on applicable 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 or
NHFP targets, described in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii)(E) of this section;
(G) Applicable Target Achievement
Discussion.—If FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement of any
NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial
FHWA determinations, then the State
DOT shall include a description of the
actions they will undertake to achieve
those targets as required under
§ 490.109(f). If FHWA determines in
§ 490.109(e) that the State DOT has
made significant progress for NHPP or
NHFP targets, then the State DOT does
not need to include this description for
those targets; and
(H) MPO CMAQ Performance Plan.—
Where applicable, State DOTs shall
include as an attachment the MPO
CMAQ Performance Plan, described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(c) MPO Report.—The 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
documented and mutually agreed upon
by both parties.
(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.
(3) MPOs serving a TMA with a
population over one million
representing nonattainment and
maintenance areas for ozone, CO, or PM
NAAQS shall develop a CMAQ
performance plan as required by 23
U.S.C. 149(l). The CMAQ performance
plan is not required when the MPO does
not serve a TMA with a population over
one million; the MPO is attainment for
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23903
ozone, CO, and PM NAAQS; or the
MPO’s nonattainment or maintenance
area for ozone, CO, or PM NAAQS is
outside the urbanized area boundary of
the TMA with a population over one
million.
(i) The CMAQ performance plan shall
be submitted as a separate section
attached to the State Biennial
Performance Reports, as required under
§ 490.107(b), and be updated biennially
on the same schedule as the State
Biennial Performance Reports.
(ii) For traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions measures in
Subparts G and H, the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
State DOT’s Baseline Performance
Period Report shall include:
(A) The 2-year and 4-year targets for
the traffic congestion measure, identical
to the relevant State DOT(s) reported
target under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of
this section, for each applicable
urbanized area;
(B) The 2-year and 4-year targets for
the on-road mobile source emissions
measure for the performance period;
(C) Baseline condition/performance
for each MPO reported traffic congestion
target, identical to the relevant State
DOT(s) reported baseline condition/
performance under paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section;
(D) Baseline condition/performance
derived from the latest estimated
cumulative emissions reductions from
CMAQ projects for each MPO reported
on-road mobile source emissions target;
and
(E) A description of projects identified
for CMAQ funding and how such
projects will contribute to achieving the
performance targets for these measures.
(iii) For traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions measures in
Subparts G and H, the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
State DOT’s Mid Performance Period
Progress Report shall include:
(A) 2-year condition/performance for
the traffic congestion measure, identical
to the relevant State DOT(s) reported
condition/performance under paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, for each
applicable urbanized area;
(B) 2-year condition/performance
derived from the latest estimated
cumulative emissions reductions from
CMAQ projects for each MPO reported
on-road mobile source emissions target;
(C) An assessment of the progress of
the projects identified in the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
Baseline Performance Period Report
toward achieving the 2-year targets for
these measures;
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23904
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(D) When applicable, an adjusted 4year target to replace an established 4year target; and
(E) An update to the description of
projects identified for CMAQ funding
and how those updates will contribute
to achieving the 4-year performance
targets for these measures.
(iv) For traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions measures in
Subparts G and H, the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the
State DOT’s Full Performance Period
Progress Report shall include:
(A) 4-year condition/performance for
the traffic congestion measure, identical
to the relevant State DOT(s) reported
condition/performance reported under
paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, for
each applicable urbanized area;
(B) 4-year condition/performance
derived from the latest estimated
cumulative emissions reductions from
CMAQ projects for each MPO reported
on-road mobile source emissions target;
and
(C) An assessment of the progress of
the projects identified in both
paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(C) and (c)(3)(iii)(D)
of this section toward achieving the 4year targets for these measures.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 490.109 Assessing significant progress
toward achieving the performance targets
for the National Highway Performance
Program and the National Highway Freight
Program.
(a) In general.—The FHWA will
assess each of the State DOT targets
separately for the measures specified in
§ 490.105(c)(1)through (c)(5) and the
NHFP measures specified in
§ 490.105(c)(6) 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 applicable
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
and NHFP targets after the State DOT
submits the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report 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 4year 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 and NHFP
targets.
(d) Source of data/information.—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
(1) The FHWA will use the following
sources of information to assess NHPP
condition and performance progress:
(i) 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);
(ii) 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);
(iii) 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);
(iv) The urbanized area boundary and
NHS limit data in the HPMS as
documented in the Baseline
Performance Period Report specified in
§ § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E);
(v) Data contained within the HPMS
on August 15 of the year in which the
significant progress determination is
made that represents performance from
the prior year for targets established for
the Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS performance measures, as
specified in § 490.105(c)(4) and (5); and
(vi) Population data as defined by the
most recent U.S. Decennial Census for
urbanized areas available at the time
when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to
FHWA.
(2) The FHWA will use the data
contained within the HPMS on August
15 of the year in which the significant
progress determination is made that
represents performance from the prior
year for targets established for NHFP
measures, as specified in
§ 490.105(c)(6), to assess NHFP targets
and performance progress.
(e) Significant progress determination
for individual NHPP and NHFP targets.
(1) In general.—The FHWA will
biennially assess whether the State DOT
has achieved or made significant
progress toward each target established
by the State DOT for the NHPP
measures described in § 490.105(c)(1)
through (c)(5) and NHFP measures
described in § 490.105(c)(6). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 and NHFP targets.—
The FHWA will determine that a State
DOT has made significant progress
toward the achievement of each 2-year
or 4-year applicable 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.—
The following requirements shall only
apply to the first performance period
and only to the Interstate System
pavement condition targets and nonInterstate NHS travel time reliability
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.
(iii) FHWA will not make a
determination of significant progress
toward the achievement of 2-year targets
for non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure.
(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 an NHPP or
NHFP target, FHWA will determine that
the State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achievement of the
applicable 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 and
NHFP 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
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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 are:
(A) Natural or man-made disasters
that caused delay in NHPP or NHFP
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 toward
achieving the relevant 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.—
(1) If FHWA determines that a State
DOT has not made significant progress
toward the achieving of NHPP targets,
then the State DOT shall include as part
of the next performance target report
under section 150(e) [the 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:
(i) If significant progress is not made
for either target established for the
Interstate System pavement condition
measures, § 490.307(a)(1) and
§ 490.307(a)(2), then the State DOT shall
document the actions they will take to
improve Interstate Pavement conditions;
(ii) If significant progress is not made
for either target established for the NonInterstate System pavement condition
measures, § 490.307(a)(3) and
§ 490.307(a)(4), then the State DOT shall
document the actions they will take to
improve Non-Interstate Pavement
conditions;
(iii) If significant progress is not made
for either target established for the NHS
bridge condition measures,
§ 490.407(c)(1) and § 490.407(c)(2), then
the State DOT shall document the
actions they will take to improve the
NHS bridge conditions;
(iv) If significant progress is not made
for either target established for the NHS
travel time reliability measures,
§ 490.507(a)(1) and § 490.407(a)(2), then
the State DOT shall document the
actions they will take to achieve the
NHS travel time targets;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
(v) If significant progress is not made
for either urbanized area specific target,
described in § 490.105(e)(8), established
for the peak hour travel measures,
§ 490.507(b)(1) and § 490.407(b)(2) for
an urbanized area, then the State DOT
shall document the actions they will
take to achieve both the Interstate and
non-Interstate NHS peak hour travel
time targets that urbanized area;
(2) If FHWA determines that a State
DOT has not made significant progress
toward achieving the NHFP targets
established for either of the NHFP
measures in § 490.607(a) or § 490.607(b),
then the State DOT shall include as part
of the next performance target report
under section 150(e) [the Biennial
Performance Report], a description of
the action the State will undertake to
achieve the targets, including—
(i) An identification of significant
freight system trends, needs, and issues
within the State;
(ii) A description of the freight
policies and strategies that will guide
the freight-related transportation
investments of the State;
(iii) An inventory of freight
bottlenecks within the State and a
description of the ways in which the
State DOT is allocating national
highway freight program funds to
improve those bottlenecks; and
(iv) A description of the actions the
State DOT will undertake to achieve the
targets established for the Freight
measures in § 490.607(a) and
§ 490.607(b).
(3) The State DOT should, within 6
months of the significant progress
determination, amend its Biennial
Performance Report to document the
information specified in this paragraph
to ensure actions are being taken to
achieve targets.
§ 490.111
Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this subpart 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 document in the
Federal Register and the material must
be available to the public. All approved
material is available for inspection at
the Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Highway Policy Information
(202–366–4631) and is available from
the sources listed below. It is also
available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030 or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
23905
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 Subparts A through C, and
E through G.
(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 and 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.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
23906
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(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.
■ 3. Add a new Subpart E to read as
follows:
Subpart E—National Performance
Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway
System
Sec.
490.501 Purpose.
490.503 Applicability.
490.505 Definitions.
490.507 National Performance Management
Measures for System Performance.
490.509 Data requirements.
490.511 Calculation of system performance
metrics.
490.513 Calculation of system performance
management measures.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 490.501
Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to
implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(IV) and
(c)(3)(A)(ii)(V) to establish performance
measures for State Departments of
Transportation (State DOTs) and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) to use to assess:
(a) Performance of the Interstate
System; and
(b) Performance of the non-Interstate
National Highway System (NHS).
§ 490.503
Applicability.
(a) The performance measures are
applicable to those portions of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
mainline highways on the NHS as
provided below (and in more detail in
§ 490.507):
(1) The Reliability measures in
§ 490.507(a) are applicable to all
directional mainline highways on the
Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS.
(2) The Peak Hour Travel Time
measures in § 490.507(b) are applicable
to all directional mainline highways on
the Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS that are within the boundary of
urbanized areas with a population over
one million.
§ 490.505
Definitions.
All definitions in § 490.101 apply to
this subpart. Unless otherwise specified
in this subpart, the following definitions
apply:
Desired Peak Period Travel Time is
the desired travel time on a specific
reporting segment during the peak
period that is defined in coordination
between the State DOT and MPO.
Level of Travel Time Reliability is a
comparison, expressed as a ratio, of the
80th percentile travel time of a reporting
segment to the ‘‘normal’’ (50th
percentile) travel time of a reporting
segment occurring throughout a full
calendar year.
Normal Travel Time (or 50th
percentile travel time) is the time of
travel to traverse the full extent of a
reporting segment which is greater than
the time for 50 percent of the travel in
a calendar year to traverse the same
reporting segment.
Peak Hour Travel Time is defined as
the longest average annual travel time
on a segment of roadway during the
peak period.
The Peak Period is defined as nonholiday weekdays from 6:00 to 7:00
a.m., 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.,
4:00 to 5:00 p.m., 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. and
6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio is
defined as the ratio between the Peak
Hour Travel Time and the Desired Peak
Period Travel Time for a segment of
roadway.
Travel Time Cumulative Probability
Distribution means a representation of
all the travel times for a road segment
during a defined reporting period (such
as annually) presented in a percentile
ranked order as provided in the Travel
Time Data Set. The normal (50th
percentile) and 80th percentile travel
times used to compute the Travel Time
Reliability measure may be identified by
the travel time cumulative probability
distribution.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 490.507 National Performance
Management Measures for System
Performance.
There are four performance measures
to assess the performance of the
Interstate System and the performance
of the non-Interstate NHS for the
purpose of carrying out the National
Highway Performance Program.
(a) Two measures are used to assess
Reliability. They are:
(1) Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times; and
(2) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
providing for Reliable Travel Times.
(b) Two measures are used to assess
Peak Hour Travel Time in urbanized
areas over 1,000,000 in population.
They are:
(1) Percent of the Interstate System
where Peak Hour Travel Times meet
expectations; and
(2) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
where Peak Hour Travel Times meet
expectations.
§ 490.509
Data requirements.
(a) Travel time data needed to
calculate the measures in § 490.507
shall come from the Travel Time Data
Set, as specified in § 490.103(e).
(1) State DOTs, in coordination with
MPOs, shall define reporting segments
in accordance with § 490.103(f) and
submit the reporting segments in
accordance with § 490.103(g). Reporting
segments must be contiguous so that
they cover the full extent of the
mainline highways of the NHS in the
State.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) State DOTs shall use posted speed
limit data to calculate travel times when
data is not available in the Travel Time
Data Set (data not reported, or reported
as ‘‘0’’ or null) as specified in
§ 490.511(b)(1)(v).
(c) Populations of urbanized areas
shall be as identified based on the most
recent U.S. Decennial Census available
at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to
FHWA. State DOTs and MPOs shall use
this population to identify areas that are
applicable to the Peak Hour Travel Time
measure as specified in § 490.503.
§ 490.511 Calculation of system
performance metrics.
(a) Two performance metrics are
required for the measures specified in
§ 490.507. These are:
(1) Level of Travel Time Reliability
(LOTTR)
(2) Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio
(PHTTR)
(b) The State DOT shall calculate the
LOTTR metrics for each NHS reporting
segment in accordance with the
following:
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23907
Friday) from January 1st through
December 31st of the same year;
(ii) Includes travel times occurring
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. for every weekday (MondayFriday) from January 1st through
December 31st of the same year;
(iii) Includes travel times occurring
between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 8:00
p.m. for every weekday (MondayFriday) from January 1st through
December 31st of the same year;
(iv) Includes travel times occurring
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. for every weekend day (SaturdaySunday) from January 1st through
December 31st of the same year; and
(v) Any travel time for Travel Time
segments contained within a reporting
segment that are not reported, or
reported as ‘‘0’’ or null shall be replaced
with the calculated travel time for that
segment, based on the segment length
and posted speed limit (TT@PSL),
rounded to the nearest second.
(2) The Normal Travel Time (50th
percentile) shall be determined from
each data set defined under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section as the time in
which 50 percent of the times in the
data set are shorter in duration and 50
percent are longer in duration. The 80th
percentile travel time shall be
determined from the each data set
defined under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section as the time in which 80 percent
of the times in the data set are shorter
in duration and 20 percent are longer in
duration. Both the Normal and 80th
percentile travel times can be
determined by plotting the data on a
Travel Time Cumulative Probability
Distribution graph or using the
percentile functions available in
spreadsheet and other analytical tools.
(3) Four LOTTR metrics shall be
calculated for each reporting segment;
one for each data set defined under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section as the
80th percentile travel time divided by
the 50th percentile travel time and
rounded to the nearest hundredth.
(c) The State DOT shall calculate the
PHTTR metric for each reporting
segment that is included within an
urbanized area with a population over
1,000,000 in accordance with the
following:
(1) The State DOT, in coordination
with the relevant MPOs, shall assign a
‘‘Desired Peak Period Travel Time,’’
based on their operational policies for
their NHS roadways, for each reporting
segment for the peak period, one each
for the three morning hours and three
evening hours and report these to
FHWA in accordance with
§ 490.103(g)(3).
(2) All travel times equating to speeds
less than 2 mph or greater than 100 mph
shall be removed from the calculation
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(3) An average annual peak hour
travel time for each reporting segment
shall be computed for each peak hour
on non-Federal holiday weekdays that
includes travel times recorded from
January 1st through December 31st of a
calendar year. Morning peak hours for
this metric shall include 6:00 to 7:00
a.m., 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., and 8:00 to 9:00
a.m. and afternoon peak hours for this
measure shall include 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.,
5:00 to 6:00 p.m., and 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
The average travel time for each peak
hour shall be calculated for each
reporting segment to the nearest whole
second as the sum of the 5-minute bin
segment average travel times for all
traffic (‘‘all vehicles’’ in NPMRDS
nomenclature) occurring in the peak
hour on non-Federal holiday weekdays
throughout the year divided by the total
count of 5-minute intervals where travel
times were reported in the peak hour.
(4) The longest average annual peak
hour travel time out of the 6 calculated
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall
be used to calculate the PHTTR metric
for the reporting segment.
(5) The PHTTR metric shall be
calculated for each reporting segment by
using the longest average annual peak
hour travel time as described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section divided
by either the desired morning or
afternoon peak hour travel time defined
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
corresponding to the hour when the
longest average annual peak hour travel
time occurred, and rounded to the
nearest hundredth.
(d) Starting in 2018 and annually
thereafter, State DOTs shall report the
metrics, as defined in this section, in
accordance with HPMS Field Manual by
June 15th of each year for the previous
year’s measures. Specifically, the
following metrics shall be reported for
each reporting segment:
(1) All reporting segments of the
NPMRDS shall be referenced by
NPMRDS TMC. If a State DOT elects to
use, in part or in whole, the equivalent
data set, all reporting segment shall be
referenced by HPMS location
referencing standards:
(2) The Level of Travel Time
Reliability (LOTTR) metric (to the
nearest hundredths) for each of the four
time periods identified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section; the
corresponding 80th percentile travel
times (to the nearest second); and the
corresponding normal (50th percentile)
travel times (to the nearest second);
(3) Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio
(PHTTR) (to the nearest hundredth);
peak hour travel time (to the nearest
second); and the hour (6 a.m., 7 a.m., 8
a.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., or 6 p.m.) where
the peak travel time occurred.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 490.513 Calculation of system
performance measures.
Where,
R: Total number of Interstate System
reporting segments that are exhibiting an
LOTTR below 1.50 during all of the time
periods identified in 490.511(b)(1)(i)
through (iv);
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.016</GPH>
(a) The performance measures in
§ 490.507 shall be calculated in
accordance with this section and used
by State DOTs and MPOs to carry out
the Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS performance-related requirements
of part 490, and by FHWA to make the
significant progress determinations
specified in § 490.109.
(b) The performance measure for
Interstate System Travel Time
Reliability specified in § 490.507(a)(1)
shall be computed to the nearest tenth
of a percent as follows:
EP22AP16.015</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Data sets shall be created from the
Travel Time Data Set to be used to
calculate the LOTTR metrics. This data
set shall include, for each reporting
segment, a ranked list of average travel
times for all traffic (‘‘all vehicles’’ in
NPMRDS nomenclature), to the nearest
second, for 5 minute periods of a
population that:
(i) Includes travel times occurring
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. for every weekday (Monday–
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(c) The performance measure for nonInterstate NHS Travel Time Reliability
specified in § 490.507(a)(2) shall be
computed to the nearest tenth of a
percent as follows:
■
Where,
R: Total number of non-Interstate NHS
reporting segments that are exhibiting an
LOTTR below 1.50 during all of the time
periods identified in § 490.511(b)(1)(i)
through (iv);
i: Non-Interstate NHS reporting segment;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a
mile, of non-Interstate NHS reporting
segment ‘‘i;’’
T: Total number of non-Interstate NHS
reporting segments
(d) The performance measure for
Interstate System Peak Hour Travel
Time specified in § 490.507(b)(1) shall
be computed to the nearest tenth of a
percent as follows:
4. Add Subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F—National Performance
Management Measures to Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate
System
Sec.
490.601 Purpose.
490.603 Applicability.
490.605 Definitions.
490.607 National performance management
measures to assess freight movement on
the Interstate System.
490.609 Data requirements.
490.611 Calculation of freight movement
metrics.
490.613 Calculation of freight movement
measures.
§ 490.601
Where,
R: Total number of Interstate System
reporting segments that are exhibiting a
PHTTR below 1.50;
i: Interstate System reporting segment in an
urbanized area with a population over
one million;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a
mile, of Interstate System reporting
segment ‘‘i’’;
T: Total number of Interstate System
reporting segments in an urbanized area
with a population over one million.
(e) The performance measure for nonInterstate NHS Peak Hour Travel Time
specified in § 490.507(b)(2) shall be
computed to the nearest tenth of a
percent as follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Applicability.
The performance measures to assess
the national freight movement are
applicable to the Interstate System.
§ 490.605
Definitions.
The definitions in § 490.101 apply to
this subpart.
§ 490.607 National performance
management measures to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System.
There are two performance measures
to assess freight movement on the
Interstate System. They are:
(a) Percent of the Interstate System
Mileage providing for Reliable Truck
Travel Times; and
(b) Percent of the Interstate System
Mileage Uncongested.
§ 490.609
Where,
R: Total number of non-Interstate NHS
reporting segments that are exhibiting a
PHTTR below 1.50;
i: Non-Interstate NHS reporting segment in
an urbanized area with a population over
one million;
§ 490.611
metrics.
Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to
implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(6) to establish
performance measures for State
Departments of Transportation (State
DOTs) and the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to use to assess
the national freight movement on the
Interstate System.
§ 490.603
Data requirements.
(a) Travel time data needed to
calculate the measures in § 490.607
shall come from the Travel Time Data
Set, as specified in § 490.103(e).
(b) State DOTs, in agreement with
MPOs, shall define reporting segments
in accordance with § 490.103(f) and
submit the reporting segments in
accordance with § 490.103(g). Reporting
segments must be contiguous so that
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
they cover the full extent of the
directional mainline highways of the
Interstate in the State.
(c) When truck travel times are not
available in the Travel Time Data Set
(data not reported, or reported as ‘‘0’’ or
null) as specified in § 490.611(b)(1)(ii)
for a given 5 minute interval State DOTs
shall replace the missing travel time as
follows:
(1) Replace the missing value with an
observed travel time that represents all
traffic on the roadway during the same
5 minute interval (‘‘all vehicles’’ in
NPMRDS nomenclature) provided this
travel time is associated with travel
speeds that are less than the posted
speed limit; or
(2) Replace the missing value with the
travel time that would have occurred
while traveling at the posted speed
limit.
Sfmt 4702
Calculation of freight movement
(a) Two performance metrics are
required for the measures specified in
§ 490.607. These are:
(1) Truck Travel Time Reliability.
(2) Average Truck Speed.
(b) The State DOT shall calculate the
Truck Travel Time Reliability metric for
each Interstate System reporting
segment in accordance with the
following:
(1) A truck travel time data set shall
be created from the Travel Time Data
Set to be used to calculate the Truck
Travel Time Reliability metric. This
data set shall include, for each reporting
segment, a ranked list of average truck
travel times, to the nearest second, for
5 minute periods of a 24 hour period for
an entire calendar year that:
(i) Includes truck travel times
occurring for all hours of every day and
for every 24-hour period from January
1st through December 31st of the same
year; and
(ii) Any truck travel times for Travel
Time Segments contained within a
reporting segment that are not reported,
or reported as ‘‘0’’ or null shall be
replaced with an observed travel time
that represents all traffic on the roadway
during the same 5 minute interval (‘‘all
vehicles’’ in NPMRDS nomenclature)
provided this travel time is associated
with travel speeds that are less than the
posted speed limit. In all other cases the
truck travel time shall be replaced with
a calculated truck travel time for that
segment, based on the segment length
and posted speed limit (TTT@PSL),
rounded to the nearest second.
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.019</GPH>
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a
mile, of non-Interstate NHS reporting
segment ‘‘i’’;
T: Total number of non-Interstate NHS
reporting segments in an urbanized area
with a population over one million.
EP22AP16.018</GPH>
i: Interstate System reporting segment;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a
mile, of Interstate System reporting
segment ‘‘i;’’
T: Total number of Interstate System
reporting segments.
EP22AP16.017</GPH>
23908
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(2) The Normal Truck Travel Time
(50th percentile) shall be determined
from the truck travel time data set
defined under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section as the time in which 50 percent
of the times in the data set are shorter
in duration and 50 percent are longer in
duration. The 95th percentile truck
travel time shall be determined from the
truck travel time data set defined under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section as the
time in which 95 percent of the times
in the data set are shorter in duration.
Both the Normal and 95th percentile
truck travel times can be determined by
23909
plotting the data on a Travel Time
Cumulative Probability Distribution
graph or using the percentile functions
available in spreadsheet and other
analytical tools.
(3) The Truck Travel Time Reliability
metric shall be calculated for each
Interstate System reporting segment as
the 95th percentile truck travel time
divided by the Normal Truck Travel
Time (50th percentile truck travel time),
rounded to the nearest hundredth.
(c) The State DOT shall calculate the
Average Truck Speed metric for each
Interstate System reporting segment, in
accordance with the following:
(1) Any truck travel times for the
travel time segments contained within a
reporting segment that are not reported,
or reported as ‘‘0’’ or null shall be
replaced with an observed travel time
that represents all traffic on the roadway
during the same 5 minute interval (‘‘all
vehicles’’ in NPMRDS nomenclature)
provided this travel time is associated
with travel speeds that are less than the
posted speed limit. In all other cases the
truck travel time shall be with the truck
travel time, to the nearest second, at
posted speed limit (TTT@PSL) for that
segment.
referenced by HPMS location
referencing standards:
(2) Truck Travel Time Reliability
metric (to the nearest hundredth),
including the 95th percentile truck
travel time (to the nearest second) and
normal (50th percentile) truck travel
time (to the nearest second);
(3) Average Truck Speed metric (to
the nearest hundredth mile per hour).
Where,
a: An Interstate System reporting segment
exhibiting Reliable Truck Travel Times.
Reliable Truck Travel Times for a
reporting segment is where calculated
value of metric for the reporting segment,
in § 490.611(b)(3), is below 1.50;
SLa: Segment length, to the nearest
thousandth of a mile, of Interstate
System reporting segment ‘‘a;’’
R: A total number of Interstate System
reporting segments that are exhibiting
Reliable Truck Travel Times (R ∈ T);
i: An Interstate System reporting segment;
SLi: Segment length, to the nearest
thousandth of a mile, of Interstate
System reporting segment ‘‘i;’’ and
T: A total number of Interstate System
reporting segments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Where,
g: An uncongested Interstate System
reporting segment. An uncongested
reporting segment is where calculated
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.023</GPH>
(c) The performance measure for the
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage
Uncongested as specified in § 490.607(b)
shall be computed to the nearest tenth
of a percent as follows:
EP22AP16.022</GPH>
(a) The performance measures in
§ 490.607 shall be calculated in
accordance with this section and used
by State DOTs and MPOs to carry out
the Freight Movement on the Interstate
System related requirements of part 490,
and by FHWA to report on performance
of the Interstate System.
(b) The performance measure for the
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage
providing for Reliable Truck Travel
Times specified in § 490.607(a) shall be
computed to the nearest tenth of a
percent as follows:
EP22AP16.021</GPH>
(d) Starting in 2018 and annually
thereafter, State DOTs shall report the
metrics, as defined in this section, in
accordance with HPMS Field Manual by
June 15th of each year for the previous
year’s measures. Specifically, the
following metrics shall be reported for
each reporting segment:
(1) All reporting segments of the
NPMRDS shall be referenced by
NPMRDS TMC. If a State DOT elects to
use, in part or in whole, the equivalent
data set, all reporting segment shall be
§ 490.613 Calculation of freight movement
measures.
EP22AP16.020</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where,
b = a 5-minute time interval of a travel time
reporting segment ‘‘s;’’
s = a travel time reporting segment;
T = total number of time intervals in
everyday in a full calendar year;
Segment Length ( s ) = length of reporting
segment ‘‘s,’’ to the nearest one
thousandth of a mile;
Truck Travel Timeb = travel time of trucks,
for time interval ‘‘b’’ in the Travel Time
Data Set or TTL@PSL for the reporting
segment s described in paragraph (1), to
the nearest second;
Average Truck Speed ( s ) = average annual
speed of trucks travelling through the
reporting segment ‘‘s,’’ to the nearest
hundredth mile per hour.
EP22AP16.024</GPH>
(2) The Average Truck Speed shall be
calculated for each reporting segment as
follows:
23910
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Average Truck Speed for the reporting
segment, in § 490.611(c)(2), is greater
than 50.00 mph;
SLg: Segment length, to the nearest
thousandth of a mile, of Interstate
System reporting segment ‘‘g;’’
U: A total number of uncongested Interstate
System reporting segments ();
i: An Interstate System reporting segment;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a
mile, of Interstate System reporting
segment ‘‘i;’’ and
T: Total number of Interstate System
reporting segments.
■
5. Add Subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G—National Performance
Management Measure for Assessing
the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program—Traffic
Congestion
§ 490.707 National performance
management measure for traffic
congestion.
The performance measure to assess
traffic congestion for the purpose of
carrying out the CMAQ program, is
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per
Capita.
§ 490.709
Data requirements.
All definitions in § 490.101 apply to
this subpart. Unless otherwise specified,
the following definitions apply in this
subpart:
Excessive delay means the extra
amount of time spent in congested
conditions defined by speed thresholds
that are lower than a normal delay
threshold. For the purposes of this rule,
the speed threshold is 35 miles per hour
(a) Travel time data needed to
calculate the measure in § 490.707 shall
come from the Travel Time Data Set, as
specified in § 490.103(e).
(b) State DOTs, in coordination with
MPOs, shall define reporting segments
in accordance with § 490.103(f) and
submit the reporting segments in
accordance with § 490.103(g). Reporting
segments must be contiguous so that
they cover the full extent of the
directional mainline highways of the
NHS in the urbanized area(s).
(c) State DOTs shall develop hourly
traffic volume data for each reporting
segment as follows:
(1) State DOTs shall measure or
estimate hourly traffic volumes for each
day of the reporting year by using either
paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) State DOTs may use hourly traffic
volume counts collected by continuous
count stations and apply them to
multiple reporting segments, or
(ii) State DOTs may use Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT) reported
to the HPMS to estimate hourly traffic
volumes when no hourly volume counts
exist. In these cases the AADT data used
should be the most recently available,
but no more than two years older than
the reporting period (i.e., if reporting for
calendar year 2018, AADT should be
from 2016 or 2017) and should be split
to represent the appropriate direction of
travel of the reporting segment.
(2) State DOTs shall assign hourly
traffic volumes to each reporting
segment by hour (e.g., between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:59 a.m.; between 9:00 a.m. and
9:59, a.m.).
(3) State DOTs shall report the
methodology they use to develop hourly
1 Highway Functional Classification Concepts,
Criteria and Procedures: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
traffic volume estimates to FHWA no
later than 60 days prior to the submittal
of the first Baseline Performance Period
Report.
(4) If a State DOT elects to change the
methodology it reported under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, then the
State DOT shall submit the changed
methodology no later than 60 days prior
to the submittal of next State Biennial
Performance Report required in
§ 490.107(b).
(d) Populations of urbanized areas
shall be as identified based on the most
recent U.S. Decennial Census available
at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to
FHWA. This population shall be used
for the duration of the performance
period to calculate the performance
measure as specified in § 490.713.
(e) Nonattainment and maintenance
areas shall be identified based on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
designation of the area under the
NAAQS at the time when the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is
due to FHWA. These designations shall
be used for the duration of the
performance period.
planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_
functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf.
Sec.
490.701 Purpose.
490.703 Applicability.
490.705 Definitions.
490.707 National performance management
measure for traffic congestion.
490.709 Data requirements.
490.711 Calculation of congestion metric.
490.713 Calculation of congestion measure.
§ 490.701
Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to
implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(5)(A) to establish
performance measures for State
Departments of Transportation (State
DOTs) and the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to use in
assessing traffic congestion.
§ 490.703
Applicability.
The performance measure is
applicable to all of the National
Highway System in urbanized areas
with a population over one million that
are, in all or part, designated as
nonattainment or maintenance areas for
ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), or
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
§ 490.705
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(mph) on Interstates (Functional Class 1)
and other freeways and expressways
(Functional Class 2) and 15 mph on
other principal arterials (Functional
Class 3) and other roads with lower
functional classifications that are
included in the NHS, as defined by
FHWA: HPMS Functional
Classifications.1
Definitions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 490.711
metric.
Calculation of congestion
(a) The performance metric required
to calculate the measure specified in
§ 490.707 is Total Excessive Delay
(vehicle-hours). The following
paragraphs explain how to calculate this
metric.
(b) State DOTs shall use the following
data to calculate the Total Excessive
Delay (vehicle-hours) metric:
(1) Travel times of all traffic (‘‘all
vehicles’’ in NPMRDS nomenclature)
during each five minute interval for all
applicable reporting segments in the
Travel Time Data Set occurring for all
hours of every day and for every 24hour period from January 1st through
December 31st of the same year;
(2) The length of each applicable
reporting segment, reported as required
under § 490.709(b); and
(3) Hourly volume estimation for all
days and for all reporting segments
where excessive delay is measured, as
specified in § 490.709(c).
(c) The State DOT shall calculate the
‘‘excessive delay threshold travel time’’
for all applicable travel time segments
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
23911
Where:
Excessive Delay Treshold Travel Time(s) =
The time of travel, to the nearest whole
second, to traverse the Travel Time
Segment at which any longer measured
travel times would result in excessive
delay for the travel time segment ‘‘s;’’
Travel Time Segment Length(s) = Total
length of travel time segment to the
nearest thousandth of a mile for travel
time reporting segment ‘‘s;’’ and
Threshold Speed(s) = The speed of travel at
which any slower measured speeds
would result in excessive delay for travel
time reporting segment ‘‘s.’’
(d) State DOTs shall determine the
‘‘excessive delay’’ for each five minute
bin of each reporting segment for every
hour and every day in a calendar year
as follows:
(1) The travel time segment delay
(RSD) shall be calculated to the nearest
whole second as follow:
RSD(s)b = Travel Time(s)b¥Excessive
Delay Treshold Travel Time(s)
and
RSD(s)b ≤ 300 seconds
RSD(s)b = travel time segment delay,
calculated to the nearest whole second,
for a five minute bin ‘‘b’’ of travel time
reporting segment ‘‘s’’ for in a day in a
calendar year. RSD(s)b not to exceed 300
seconds;
Travel Time(s)b = a measured travel time, to
the nearest second, for 5-minute time bin
‘‘b’’ recorded for travel time reporting
segment ‘‘s;’’
Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time(s) =
The maximum amount of time, to the
nearest second, for a vehicle to traverse
through travel time segment ‘‘s’’ before
excessive delay would occur, as
specified in § 490.711(c);
b = a five minute bin of a travel time
reporting segment ‘‘s;’’ and
s = a travel time reporting segment.
Where:
(2) Excessive delay, the additional
amount of time to traverse a travel time
segment in a five minute bin as
compared to the time needed to traverse
the travel time segment when traveling
at the excessive delay travel speed
threshold, shall be calculated to the
nearest thousandths of an hour as
follows:
RSD(s)b = the calculated travel time reporting
segment delay for five minute bin ‘‘b’’ of
a travel time reporting segment ‘‘s,’’ as
described in paragraph (1) of this
section;
b = a five minute bin of a travel time
reporting segment ‘‘s;’’ and
s = a travel time reporting segment.
(e) State DOTs shall use the hourly
traffic volumes as described in
§ 490.709(c) to calculate the Total
Excessive Delay (vehicles-hours) metric
for each reporting segment as follows:
Where:
Total Excessive Delay (in vehicle-hours) = the
sum of the excessive delay, to the nearest
thousandths, for all traffic traveling
through single travel time reporting
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.026</GPH>
EP22AP16.027</GPH>
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EP22AP16.025</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EP22AP16.028</GPH>
Where:
Excessive delay(s)b = Excessive delay,
calculated to the nearest thousandths of
an hour, for five minute bin ‘‘b’’ of travel
time reporting segment ‘‘s;’’
23912
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
segment on NHS within an urbanized
area, specified in § 490.703, accumulated
over the full reporting year;
s = a travel time reporting segment;
d = a day of the reporting year;
TD = total number of days in the reporting
year;
h = single hour interval of the day where the
first hour interval is 12:00 a.m. to 12:59
a.m.;
TH = total number of hour intervals in day
‘‘h;’’
b = 5-minute bin for hour interval ‘‘h;’’
TB = total number of 5-minute bins where
travel times are recorded in the travel
time data set for hour interval ‘‘h;’’
Excessive Delay(s)b,h,d = calculated excessive
travel time, in hundredths of an hour, for
5 minute bin (b), hour interval (h), day
(d), and travel time segment (s), as
described in paragraph d(2) of this
section; and
interval ‘‘h’’ and day ‘‘d’’ that corresponds to
5-minute bin ‘‘b’’ and travel time reporting
segment ‘‘s’’ divided by 12. For example, the
9:05 a.m. to 9:10 a.m. minute bin would be
assigned one twelfth of the hourly traffic
volume for the 9:00 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. hour on
the roadway in which travel time segment is
included.
Delay (vehicle-hours) metric shall be
reported for each reporting segment. All
reporting segments of the NPMRDS
shall be referenced by NPMRDS TMC. If
a State DOT elects to use, in part or in
whole, the equivalent data set, all
reporting segment shall be referenced by
HPMS location referencing standards.
carry out CMAQ Traffic Congestion
performance-related requirements of
part 490.
(b) The performance measure for
CMAQ Traffic Congestion specified in
§ 490.707, Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay Per Capita, shall be computed to
the nearest hundredth, and by summing
the ‘‘Total Excessive Delay (vehiclehours)’’ metrics of all reporting
segments in each of the urbanized area,
specified in § 490.703, and dividing it
by the population of the urbanized area
to produce the measure. The equation
for calculating the measure is as follows:
(c) Calculation for the measure,
described in this section, and target
establishment for the measure shall be
phased-in under the requirements in
§§ 490.105(e)(8)(vi) and
490.105(f)(4)(vi).
■ 8. Add Subpart H to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
(a) The performance measure in
§ 490.707 shall be computed in
accordance with this section and shall
be used by State DOTs and MPOs to
Subpart H—National Performance
Management Measures to Assess the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program—On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions
§ 490.803
Applicability.
Sec.
490.801 Purpose.
490.803 Applicability.
490.805 Definitions.
490.807 National performance management
measure for assessing on-road mobile
source emissions for the purposes of the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program.
490.809 Data requirements.
490.811 Calculation of emissions metric.
490.813 Calculation of emissions measure.
(a) The on-road mobile source
emissions performance measure is
applicable to all projects financed with
funds from the 23 U.S.C. 149 CMAQ
program apportioned to State DOTs in
areas designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for ozone (O3), carbon
monoxide (CO), or particulate matter
(PM10 and PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
(b) This performance measure does
not apply to States and MPOs that do
not contain any portions of
nonattainment or maintenance areas for
the criteria pollutants identified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 490.801
§ 490.805
Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to
implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(5)(B) to establish
performance measures for State
Departments of Transportation (State
DOTs) and the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to use in
assessing on-road mobile source
emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Definitions.
All definitions in § 490.101 apply to
this subpart. Unless otherwise specified
in this part, the following definitions
apply in this part:
Donut areas mean geographic areas
outside a metropolitan planning area
boundary, but inside the boundary of a
nonattainment or maintenance area that
contains a part of any metropolitan
area(s). These areas are not isolated
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.030</GPH>
Where:
Annual Hours of Excessive Delay per Capita
= the cumulative hours of excessive
delay, to the nearest tenth, experienced
by all traffic traveling through all
reporting segments in the applicable
urbanized area for the full reporting
calendar year.
s = travel time reporting segment within an
urbanized area, specified in § 490.703;
T = total number of travel time reporting
segments in the applicable urbanized
area;
Total Excessive Delay(s) = total hours of
excessive delay in § 490.711(e) for all
traffic traveling through travel time
reporting segment ‘‘s’’ during the
reporting year (as defined in
§ 490.711(f));
Total Population = the total population in the
applicable urbanized area as reported by
the most recent U.S. Decennial Census.
§ 490.713 Calculation of congestion
measure.
EP22AP16.029</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(f) Starting in 2018 and annually
thereafter, State DOTs shall report Total
Excessive Delay (vehicle-hours) metric
(to the nearest one hundredth hour) in
accordance with HPMS Field Manual by
June 15th of each year for the previous
year’s measures. The Total Excessive
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules
§ 490.807 National performance
management measure for assessing onroad mobile source emissions for the
purposes of the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The performance measure for the
purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
Program and for State DOTs to use to
assess on-road mobile source emissions
is, ‘‘Total Emissions Reduction’’, which
is the 2-year and 4-year cumulative
reported emission reductions, for all
projects funded by CMAQ funds, of
each criteria pollutant and applicable
precursors (PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC, and
NOX) under the CMAQ program for
which the area is designated
nonattainment or maintenance.
Where:
i = applicable projects reported in the CMAQ
Public Access System for the first 2
Federal fiscal years of a performance
period and for the entire performance
period, as described in in
§ 490.105(e)(4)(i)(B);
p = criteria pollutant or applicable precursor:
PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC, or NOX;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:44 Apr 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 490.809
Data requirements.
(a) The data needed to calculate the
Total Emission Reduction measure shall
come from the CMAQ Public Access
System and includes:
(1) The applicable nonattainment or
maintenance area;
(2) The applicable MPO; and
(3) The emissions reduction estimated
for each CMAQ funded project for each
of the applicable criteria pollutants and
their precursors for which the area is
nonattainment or maintenance.
(b) The State DOT shall:
(1) Enter project information into the
CMAQ project tracking system for each
CMAQ project funded in the previous
fiscal year by March 1st of the following
fiscal year; and
(2) Extract the data necessary to
calculate the on-road mobile source
emissions measures as it appears in the
CMAQ Public Access System on July 1st
for projects obligated in the prior fiscal
year.
(c) Nonattainment and maintenance
areas shall be identified based on the
effective date of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s designations under
the NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81 at the
time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to
FHWA. These designations shall be
used for the duration of the performance
period.
§ 490.811
Calculation of emissions metric.
(a) The metric to calculate the Total
Emission Reductions measure is the
conversion of Emission Reductions from
kg/day to short tons per year.
(b) The Annual Tons of Emission
Reductions that are predicted for each
Annual Tons of Emission Reductons(p)i =
specified metric in § 490.811(b);
T = total number of applicable projects
reported to the CMAQ Public Access
System for the first 2 Federal fiscal years
of a performance period and for the
entire performance period, as described
in § 490.105(e)(4)(i)(B); and
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
applicable project reported to the
CMAQ Public Access System for each
criteria pollutant or precursor for one
year shall be defined as follows:
Annual Tons of Emission Reductions(p)i
= Reductions(p)i × 0.4026
Where:
p = criteria pollutant or precursor: PM2.5,
PM10,, CO, VOC, or NOX;
i = a project that is obligated for CMAQ
funding for the first time;
Reductions/p/ = estimated daily emissions
reductions for a criteria pollutant or a
precursor in a Federal fiscal year for
which the project is obligated for CMAQ
funding for the first time. This is
reported in kg/day, in the first year the
project is operational, to the nearest one
thousandths; and
Annual Tons of Emission Reductons(p)i =
total annual short tons, to the nearest one
thousandths, of reduced emissions for a
criteria pollutant or an applicable
precursor ‘‘p’’ in the in the first year the
project is obligated.
§ 490.813 Calculation of emissions
measure.
(a) The Total Emission Reductions
performance measure specified in
§ 490.807 shall be calculated in
accordance with this section and used
by State DOTs and MPOs to carry out
CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions performance-related
requirements of part 490.
(b) The Total Emission Reductions for
each of the criteria pollutant or
applicable precursor for all projects
reported to the CMAQ Public Access
System shall be calculated to the nearest
one thousandths, as follows:
Total Emission Reductions(p) = cumulative
reductions in emissions over 2 and 4
Federal fiscal years, total annual short
tons, to the nearest one thousandths, of
reduced emissions for criteria pollutant
or precursor ‘‘p’’.
[FR Doc. 2016–08014 Filed 4–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
E:\FR\FM\22APP2.SGM
22APP2
EP22AP16.031</GPH>
rural nonattainment and maintenance
areas.
Isolated rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas mean areas that do
not contain or are not part of any
metropolitan planning area as
designated under the transportation
planning regulations. Isolated rural
areas do not have federally required
metropolitan transportation plans or
Transportation Improvement Plans
(TIPs) and do not have projects that are
part of the emissions analysis of any
MPO’s metropolitan transportation plan
or TIP. Projects in such areas are instead
included in statewide transportation
improvement programs. These areas are
not donut areas.
On-road mobile source means, within
this rulemaking, emissions created by
all projects and sources financed with
funds from the 23 U.S.C. 149 CMAQ
program.
23913
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23805-23913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08014]
[[Page 23805]]
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 78
April 22, 2016
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Part 490
National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the
National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 23806]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 490
[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0054]
RIN 2125-AF54
National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance
of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate
System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This NPRM is the third in a series of three related NPRMs that
together establishes a set of performance measures for State
departments of transportation (State DOT) and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO) to use as required by Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The measures proposed in this third NPRM
would be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess the performance of the
Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) for the
purpose of carrying out the National Highway Performance Program
(NHPP); to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and to
assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the
purpose of carrying out the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program. This third performance measure NPRM also
includes a discussion that summarizes all three of the national
performance management measures proposed rules and the comprehensive
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to include all three NPRMs.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2016. Late
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
FHWA-2013-0020 by any one of the following methods:
Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590;
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or electronically through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name and docket number or Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2125-AF54). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT
solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking
process. The DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Francine
Shaw Whitson, Office of Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028; for legal
information: Anne Christenson, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0740,
Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA has published two additional NPRMs
to establish the remaining measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
The first performance measure NPRM proposed establishment of measures
to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and to
assess serious injuries and fatalities, both in number and expressed as
a rate, on all public roads. On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final
rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50) covering the safety-related elements of the
Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking. The second
performance measure NPRM proposed establishment of performance measures
to assess pavement and bridge conditions on the Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP. This NPRM,
the third performance measure NPRM, focuses on measures for the
performance of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate System, and
the CMAQ Program.
This last NPRM includes a discussion that summarizes all three of
the rulemakings, both finished and underway, that will establish the
measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in
Question
C. Incorporating the FAST Act
D. Costs and Benefits
II. 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
1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subparts E and G:
Performance Management Measures to Assess Performance of the
National Highway System and to Assess the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program--Traffic Congestion
2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart F: National
Performance Management Measures to Assess Freight Movement on the
Interstate System
3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart H: National
Performance Management Measures for the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program--On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background
A. Summary of Related Rulemakings
B. Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions
C. Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements
V. Performance Management Measure Analysis
A. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subparts E and G--System
Performance and Traffic Congestion
B. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart F--Freight
Movement on the Interstate System
C. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart H--On-Road Mobile
Source Emissions
D. Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion
A. Subpart A: General Information, Target Establishment,
Reporting, and NHPP and NHFP Significant Progress Determination
B. Subpart E: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway System
C. Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate System
D. Subpart G: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
the
[[Page 23807]]
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--Traffic
Congestion
E. Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--On-
Road Mobile Source Emissions
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
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 decisionmaking 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 toward the following national goals: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which
requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance,
condition, or emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement MAP-21 performance
management requirements. Prior to MAP-21, there were no explicit
requirements for State DOTs to demonstrate how their transportation
program supported national performance outcomes. State DOTs were not
required to measure condition/performance, to establish targets, to
assess progress toward targets, or to report condition/performance in a
nationally consistent manner that FHWA could use to assess the
condition/performance of the entire system. Without States reporting on
the above mentioned factors, it is 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 will 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
condition/performance;
Require the establishment of targets that can be
aggregated at the national level;
Require reporting in a consistent manner on progress
achievement; and
Require State DOTs to make significant progress.
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 in the process of creating a
new public Web site to help communicate the national performance story.
The Web site will likely include infographics, tables, charts, and
descriptions of the performance data that the State DOTs would be
reporting to FHWA.
The FHWA is required to establish performance measures through a
rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas \2\ generalized as
follows: (1) Serious injuries per vehicle miles traveled (VMT); (2)
fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious injuries; (4) number of
fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the Interstate System; (6)
pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS; (7) bridge condition on
the NHS; (8) traffic congestion; (9) on-road mobile source emissions;
(10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) performance of the
Interstate System; and (12) performance of the non-Interstate NHS. This
rulemaking is the third of three rulemakings that together, will
establish the performance measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to
carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess performance in
each of these 12 areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 rulemaking seeks to establish national measures for areas 8,
9, 10, 11, and 12, in the above list. This NPRM proposes to establish
performance measures to assess the performance of the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP; to
assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and to assess traffic
congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of
carrying out the CMAQ program areas. The two proposed measures to
assess performance of the Interstate are (1) Percent of the Interstate
System providing for Reliable Travel, and (2) Percent of the Interstate
System where peak hour travel times meet expectations. The two proposed
measures to assess performance of the non-Interstate NHS are (1)
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable Travel and (2)
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times meet
expectations. The two proposed measures to assess freight movement on
the Interstate System are (1) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage
providing for Reliable Truck Travel Time, and (2) Percent of the
Interstate System Mileage Uncongested. The proposed measure to assess
traffic congestion is Annual Hours of Excessive Delay per Capita.
Lastly, the proposed measure to assess on-road mobile source emissions
is Total Tons of Emissions Reduced from CMAQ Projects for Applicable
Criteria Pollutants and Precursors.
In addition, this NPRM builds on the framework of the previous
performance rulemakings and the process proposed for State DOTs and
MPOs to establish targets for each of the measures; the methodology to
determine whether State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress
toward their NHPP or National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) targets
(targets for national measures areas 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12, in the
above list); and the process for State DOTs to use to report on
progress toward achieving their targets.
b. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question
The first performance rule established measures to be used by State
DOTs to assess performance and to carry out the HSIP; the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to use to establish safety targets; the methodology
to determine whether State DOTs have achieved their safety targets; and
the process for State DOTs to report on progress toward achieving their
safety targets. The second performance rule proposed the
[[Page 23808]]
establishment of performance measures to be use by State DOTs to assess
the condition of pavements and bridges and to carry out the NHPP.
With this third rule, FHWA proposes the establishment of:
Performance measures to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess
performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS, traffic
congestion, on-road mobile source emissions, and freight movement on
the Interstate System; the process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to
establish targets; the methodology to determine whether State DOTs have
achieved or made significant progress toward their NHPP and NHFP
performance targets; and the process for State DOTs to report on
progress toward achieving their targets. This NPRM includes one general
information area (Subpart A) that covers definitions, target
establishment, reporting on progress, and how determinations would be
made on whether State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress
toward NHPP and NHFP targets. Subparts E through H propose performance
measures in four areas: (1) National Highway Performance Program--
Performance of the NHS covered in Subpart E; (2) Freight Movement on
the Interstate System, covered in Subpart F; and two measures relating
to the CMAQ Program: (3) Traffic Congestion covered in Subpart G, and
(4) On-Road Mobile Source Emissions, covered in Subpart H.
The FHWA had proposed in the prior performance management NPRMs to
establish one common effective date for its three performance measure
final rules. While FHWA recognizes that one common effective date could
be easier for State DOTs and MPOs to implement, the process to develop
and implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures
required in MAP-21 has been lengthy. It is taking more than 3 years
since the enactment of MAP-21 to issue all three performance measure
NPRMs (the first performance management NPRM was published on March 11,
2014; the second NPRM was published on January 5, 2015). Rather than
waiting for all three rules to be final before implementing the MAP-21
performance measure requirements, FHWA has decided to phase in the
effective dates for the three final rules for these performance
measures so that each of the three performance measures rules will have
individual effective dates. This allows FHWA and State DOTs to begin
implementing some of the performance requirements much sooner than
waiting for the rulemaking process to be complete for all the rules.
The FHWA believes that individual implementation dates will also help
State DOTs transition to performance based planning.
On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50)
covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking. With the staggered effective dates,
this Rule will be implemented in its entirety before the other two
rules are finalized.
Based on the timing of each individual rulemaking, FHWA would
provide additional guidance to stakeholders on how to best integrate
the new requirements into their existing processes. Under this
approach, FHWA expects that even though the implementation for each
rule would occur after each final rule is published, implementation for
the second and the third performance measure final rules would
ultimately be aligned through a common performance period. In the
second performance management measure NPRM, FHWA proposed that the
first 4-year performance period would start on January 1, 2016.
However, FHWA proposes in this NPRM that the first performance period
would begin on January 1, 2018. This would align the performance
periods and reporting requirements for the proposed measures in the
second and third performance management measure NPRMs. The FHWA has
placed on the docket a timeline that illustrates how this transition
could be implemented.\3\ However, FHWA seeks comment from the public on
what an appropriate effective date(s) could be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FHWA Sample MAP21 Rule Making Implementation and Reporting
Dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents of 23 CFR Part 490
This NPRM proposes to add to Subpart A general information
applicable to all of 23 CFR part 490. This section includes
requirements for data, target establishment, reporting on progress, and
how to determine whether State DOTs have made significant progress
toward achieving targets (for applicable measures). Subpart A also
includes definitions and clarifies terminology associated with target
establishment, reporting, and making significant progress for the
performance measures specific to this NPRM. Subparts B, C and D were
previously published in separate rulemaking documents.
Subpart B covered the proposed measures for the HSIP (RIN 2125-
AF49); Subpart C proposed measures to assess pavement conditions on the
NHS and the non-Interstate NHS (RIN 2125-AF53); and Subpart D proposed
measures to assess bridge conditions on the NHS (RIN 2125-AF53).
Subpart E proposes a travel time reliability measure and a peak
hour travel time measure to assess the performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS. Subpart F establishes a travel time
reliability measure and a congestion measure to assess freight movement
on the Interstate System. Subpart G proposes an excessive delay measure
to assess traffic congestion to carry out the CMAQ program. Subpart H
proposes measures that will be used to assess the reduction of the
criteria pollutants and applicable precursors to carry out the CMAQ
program.
Summary of 23 CFR Part 490, Subpart A
In section 490.101, FHWA proposes to add definitions for
``attainment area,'' ``criteria pollutant,'' ``Highway Performance
Monitoring Systems (HPMS),'' ``freight bottleneck,'' ``full extent,''
``mainline highways,'' ``maintenance area,'' ``measure,'' ``metric,''
``Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),'' ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' ``National Performance Management Research
Data Set (NPMRDS),'' ``nonattainment area,'' ``non-urbanized area,''
``reporting segment,'' ``target,'' ``Transportation Management Area
(TMA),'' ``Travel Time Data Set,'' ``Travel Time Reliability,'' and
``Travel Time Segment,'' which would be applicable to all subparts
within Part 490.
In section 490.103, FHWA proposes data requirements that apply to
more than one subpart in Part 490. Additional proposed data
requirements unique to each subpart are included and discussed in each
respective subpart. This section proposes the source of urbanized area
boundaries as the most recent U.S. Decennial Census unless FHWA
approves adjustments to the urbanized area. These boundaries are to be
reported to HPMS. The boundaries in place at the time of the Baseline
Performance Report are to apply to an entire performance period.
Boundaries for the nonattainment and maintenance areas are proposed to
be as designated and reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the
CMAQ program. The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs and MPOs use the
NPMRDS to calculate the travel time and speed related metrics (a metric
means a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition that is used
to develop the measures defined in this
[[Page 23809]]
rule), unless more detailed and accurate travel time data exists
locally and is approved by FHWA for use.
The NPMRDS is a dataset based on actual, observed data collected
from probes, such as cell phones, navigation units, and other devices,
in vehicles that travel along the NHS roadways. The dataset includes
travel time information collected from probes that is available at 5
minute intervals for all segments of the Interstate and NHS where
probes were present. The advent of readily available vehicle-based
probe travel time data in recent years has led to a transformation in
information available to the traveler and the ability for State DOTs
and MPOs to develop performance measures based on this data. Because
travel time data on the entire NHS is available from actual
measurements tied to a date, time, and location on specific roadway
segments, measuring the performance of the system, freight movement,
and monitoring traffic congestion can be much more accurate,
widespread, and detailed. The availability of this data also provides
the potential to undertake before and after evaluations of
transportation projects and strategies. These data requirements are
detailed in proposed section 490.103.
The FHWA is proposing State DOTs and MPOs coordinate to develop
reporting segments that would be used as the basis for calculating and
reporting metrics to FHWA for the measures proposed in Subparts E, F,
and G to assess the performance of the NHS, freight movement on the
Interstate System, and traffic congestion. It is proposed that these
reporting segments must be submitted to FHWA no later than the November
1 before the beginning of each performance period, and the same
segments be used for Subparts E, F, and G for the entire performance
period.
In section 490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that
would be followed by State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for all
measures identified in section 490.105(c), which includes proposed
measures both in this performance management NPRM and the second
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 to provide for 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.
In section 490.107, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that
would be followed by State DOTs and MPOs in the reporting targets for
all proposed measures identified in both this performance management
NPRM and the second performance management NPRM.
Section 490.109 proposes the method FHWA would use to determine if
State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress toward their NHPP
and NHFP targets. Significant progress would be determined by comparing
the established target with the measured condition/performance
associated with that target. If applicable, State DOTs would have the
opportunity to discuss why targets were not achieved or significant
progress was not made. For the NHPP and NHFP measures, if FHWA
determines that a State DOT fails to make significant progress over
each of the biennial performance reporting periods, then the State DOT
is required to document in their next biennial performance report,
though encouraged to document sooner, the actions they will undertake
to achieve their targets.
Summary of Proposed Measures for This NPRM (Subparts E--H)
The NPRM gives details on specific measures, which are proposed to
be added to four new Subparts of Part 490 that include:
Subpart E proposes two types of measures that reflect the Travel
Time Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Times experienced by all traffic;
Subpart F proposes two measures that reflect the Travel Time
Reliability and Congestion experienced by freight vehicles;
Subpart G proposes a measure that reflects the amount of Excessive
Delay experienced by all traffic; and
Subpart H proposes a measure that reflects the Emission Reduction
resulting through the delivery of projects.
Travel Time Reliability is being proposed to reflect the
consistency in expected travel times when using the highway system by
comparing the longer trips experienced by users to the amount of time
they would normally expect the trip to take. In Subpart E, the NPRM
proposes a reliability measure that compares the longer trip travel
times to the time normally expected by the typical user of the roadway.
The proposal assumes the system to be ``reliable'' when the longer
travel times are no more than 50 percent higher than what would be
normally expected by users. For example, the system would be perceived
as unreliable when a 40 minute expected trip would take 60 or more
minutes. This proposed measure of reliability only reflects the travel
times experienced during the times when the system is used the most,
which is proposed to be between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
This reliability approach is proposed to establish a measure specific
to the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS.
Subpart F proposes a reliability measure to reflect the consistency
of travel times on the system as experienced by shippers and suppliers.
In this case the measure is a comparison of the longest travel times as
compared to the time normally expected for the trip to take. The
measure considers travel occurring at all hours of the day since this
measure is designed to represent the perception of shippers and
suppliers. In addition, this proposed freight movement measure is
limited to the reliability of the Interstate System. As with all
vehicles, the system is considered to be unreliable when the longest
trip takes 50 percent more time than what would be normally expected.
``Longer'' and ``Longest'' trip travel times are described in more
detail in the discussions of Section 490.505 and 490.607.
Also in Subpart E, as a complement to the reliability measure, the
NPRM proposes a measure that evaluates the travel times experienced by
all traffic during peak hours of the day. In contrast to the
reliability measure which focuses on travel time variability, the peak
hour measure is designed to measure the travel time during certain peak
hours during the day, and how that compares to the desired travel time
for that roadway at that time of day. The desired travel time is
defined by the State DOT and MPO. It is expected that the desired time
would be based on an analysis of how the roadway operates, its design
features, any policy considerations, and how it functions within the
larger system. As discussed previously, reliability reflects the
consistency of trip time durations (e.g., A user makes a trip every
morning that consistently takes 30 minutes). The peak hour travel time
measure reflects the actual length of the trip compared to the desired
travel time for that trip (e.g., Is the 30 minute trip duration too
long for the time of day and the design of the roadway?). The peak hour
measure reflects the actual travel times occurring on non-holiday
weekdays during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The measure is
designed to compare the longest trip time occurring during these hours
to the amount of time desired to take the trip as perceived by the
entities that operate the transportation system. This measurement
approach is applied to the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS
in only the largest urbanized areas
[[Page 23810]]
in the country (those with a population of 1 million or more). The
proposed measure identifies the portions of the system where actual
peak hour travel times are no more than 50 percent greater than the
desired time to take the trip.
As a complement to the truck reliability measure, in Subpart F the
NPRM is proposing a measure that reflects where trucks are experiencing
congestion on the Interstate System. This measure identifies the
portions of the Interstate System where actual truck travel speeds
throughout the year are at least 50 mph. This measure considers use of
the system every day throughout the year.
The NPRM includes two proposed measures that would be needed to
carry out the CMAQ program. The first is a measure proposed in Subpart
G that reflects traffic congestion and the second is a measure proposed
in Subpart H that reflects emission reductions through the delivery of
CMAQ funded projects.
The proposed traffic congestion measure reflects the total amount
of time during the year when highway users have experienced excessive
delay. The measure identifies times during the day when vehicles are
travelling at speeds below 35 mph for freeways/expressways or 15 mph
for all other NHS roadways. The proposed measure is designed to sum the
additional travel times weighted by traffic volumes that occur during
these excessive delay conditions throughout the year. Additionally, the
measure is proposed to be expressed as a rate calculated by dividing
the total excessive delay time by the population in the area.
The proposed emission reduction measure reflects the reductions in
particular pollutants resulting from the delivery of CMAQ funded
projects. The measure focuses on the total emissions reduced per fiscal
year, by all CMAQ-funded projects by criteria pollutant and applicable
precursors in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
More specific details on each of these measures, including
information on the areas where the measure is applicable, are included
in both the Performance Management Measure Analysis Section (Section V)
and the Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and
Proposed Performance Measures Sections (Section VI). In addition, FHWA
has developed short fact sheets for each of these measures that will be
available on the docket.
c. Incorporating the FAST Act
On December 4, 2015, the President signed the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L.114-94; Dec. 4, 2015) into
law. For the most part, the FAST Act is consistent with the performance
management elements introduced by MAP-21. For convenience, this NPRM
will refer to MAP-21 throughout the preamble to signify the fundamental
changes MAP-21 made to States' authorities and responsibilities for
overseeing the implementation of performance management.
For the purposes of this NPRM, the FAST Act made two relevant
changes to the performance management requirements. The first is 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7), which relates to the requirement for a significant
progress determination for NHPP targets. The FAST Act amended this
provision to remove the term ``2 consecutive reports.'' The FHWA has
incorporated this change into this NPRM by removing the term ``2
consecutive determinations,'' which was proposed in section
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), as well as 490.109(f) of the second NPRM,
published January 5, 2015, at 80 FR 326. In section 490.109(f) of the
second NPRM, FHWA stated that if a State DOT does not achieve or make
significant progress for its NHS performance targets for two
consecutive reporting periods (4-year period), then the State DOT must
document in its Biennial Report the actions it will take to achieve the
targets. The FAST Act has changed this. As a result, this NPRM proposes
to require State DOTs to take action when they do not make significant
progress over one reporting period, which looks back over 2 years. With
this change, the significant progress determination is still made every
2 years, but it looks back over a 2-year period instead of a 4-year
period.
The second change the FAST Act made is the addition of 23 U.S.C.
167(j), which requires FHWA to determine if a State has made
significant progress toward meeting the performance targets related to
freight movement, established under section 150(d) and requires a
description of the actions the State will undertake to achieve the
targets if significant progress is not made. To meet the these
requirements, FHWA has incorporated language throughout this NPRM
proposing to require the targets established for the measures in
section 490.105(c)(6) to be included in the significant progress
process and identifying the actions the State DOT will undertake to
achieve the targets if significant progress is not made. The FHWA has
called these the NHFP targets. The NHPP and NHFP use the same process
for assessing significant progress and determining if significant
progress is made.
d. Costs and Benefits
The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new
requirements proposed in this regulatory action. The new requirements
represent a change to the current practices of State DOTs and MPOs. The
FHWA derived the costs of the new requirements by assessing the
expected increase in the level of effort from labor for FHWA, State
DOTs and MPOs to standardize and update data collection and reporting
systems, as well as establish and report targets.
To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed
in labor hours, with a corresponding loaded wage rate \4\ which varied
by the type of laborer needed to perform the activity. Where necessary,
capital costs were included as well. Most of these measures rely on the
use and availability of NPMRDS data provided by FHWA for use by State
DOTs and MPOs. Because there is uncertainty regarding the ongoing
funding of NPMRDS by FHWA, FHWA estimated the cost of the proposed rule
according to two scenarios. First, assuming that FHWA provides State
DOTs and MPOs with the required data from NPMRDS, the 11-year
undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $165.3
million (Scenario 1).\5\ Alternatively, under ``worst case'' conditions
where State DOTs would be required to independently acquire the
necessary data, the 11-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply
with this rule are $224.5 million (Scenario 2). The total 11-year
undiscounted cost is approximately 36 percent higher under Scenario 2
than under Scenario 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost Index, 2012.
\5\ In FHWA's first two performance measure NPRMs, it assessed
costs over a 10-year study period. Because FHWA is now proposing
individual effective dates for each of its performance measure rules
rather than a common effective date, the timing of the full
implementation of the measures has shifted. Using an 11-year study
period ensures that the cost assessment includes the first 2
performance periods following the effective date of the rulemaking,
which is comparable to what the 10-year study period assessed in the
first two NPRMs. An 11-year study period captures the first year
costs related to preparing and submitting the Initial Performance
Report and a complete cycle of the incremental costs that would be
incurred by State DOTs and MPOs for assembling and reporting all
required measures as a result of the proposed rule. The FHWA
anticipates that the recurring costs beyond this timeframe would be
comparable to those estimated in the 10-year period of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA performed three separate break-even analyses as the
primary approach to quantify benefits. The FHWA focused its break-even
analyses
[[Page 23811]]
for (1) enhancing performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS by relieving congestion, and (2) improving freight
movement on the value of travel time savings. The FHWA estimated the
number of hours spent in congestion needed to be saved by commuters and
truck drivers in order for the benefits of the rule to justify the
costs. For each of these break-even analyses, FHWA presents results for
both Scenario 1 (FHWA provides access to NPMRDS) and Scenario 2 (State
DOTs must independently acquire the necessary data). The FHWA focused
the third break-even analysis on reducing emissions. The FHWA estimated
the reduction in pollutant tons needed to be achieved in order for the
benefits of the rule to justify the costs.
The aforementioned benefits are quantified within the analysis,
however, there are other qualitative benefits which apply to the
proposed rule as a whole that result from more informed decisionmaking
on congestion and emissions-reducing project, program, and policy
choices. The proposed rule also would yield greater accountability
because MAP-21-mandated reporting would increase visibility and
transparency of transportation decisionmaking. The data reported to
FHWA by the States would be available to the public and would be used
to communicate a national performance story. The FHWA is developing a
public Web site to share performance related information. In addition,
the proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway program on
achieving balanced performance outcomes.
The results of the break-even analyses quantified the dollar value
of the benefits that the proposed rule must generate to outweigh the
cost of the proposed rule. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule
would surpass these thresholds and, as a result, the benefits of the
rule would outweigh the costs.
Table 1 displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-4
Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost and benefits calculated
for this rule.
Table 1--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Discount Notes
Primary Low High Year dollar rate (%) Period covered
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Annualized Monetized None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... Not Quantified.
($millions/year). None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
Annualized Quantified......... None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... Not Quantified.
None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative................... More informed decisionmaking on freight-, congestion-, and air quality-related project, program, and policy choices; greater Proposed Rule RIA.
accountability due to mandated reporting, increasing visibility and transparency; enhanced focus of the Federal-aid highway
program on achieving balanced performance outcomes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Annualized Monetized Scenario 1: $15,651,062.. ................... ................... 2012............... 7 11 Years............. Proposed Rule RIA.
($millions/year). Scenario 2: $21,194,462..
Scenario 1: $15,304,231.. ................... ................... 2012............... 3 11 Years.............
Scenario 2: $20,760,510..
Annualized Quantified......... None..................... None............... None............... 2012............... 7 11 Years............. None.
None..................... None............... None............... 2012............... 3 11 Years.............
Qualitative................... ......................... ................... ................... ................... ........... ..................... ..............................
Transfers:
Federal Annualized Monetized None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... None.
($millions/year). None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
From/To....................... From:.................... ................... ................... To:................ ........... .....................
Other Annualized Monetized None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... None.
($millions/year). None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
From/To....................... From:.................... ................... ................... To:................ ........... .....................
Effects:
State, Local, and/or Tribal Scenario 1: $15,271,675.. ................... ................... 2012............... 7 11 Years............. Proposed Rule RIA.
Government. Scenario 2: $21,189,733..
Scenario 1: $14,931,176.. ................... ................... 2012............... 3 11 Years.............
Scenario 2: $20,756,223..
Small Business................ None NA................. NA NA................... None.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages......................... None
Growth........................ Not Measured
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
[[Page 23812]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym or abbreviation Term
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AADT......................................... annual average daily traffic
AASHTO....................................... American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
CAA.......................................... Clean Air Act
CFR.......................................... Code of Federal Regulations
CMAQ......................................... Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
CO........................................... Carbon monoxide
DOT.......................................... U.S. Department of Transportation
EO........................................... Executive Order
EPA.......................................... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAST Act..................................... Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
FHWA......................................... Federal Highway Administration
FPM.......................................... Freight Performance Measurement
FR........................................... Federal Register
GHG.......................................... Greenhouse gas
HPMS......................................... Highway Performance Monitoring System
HSIP......................................... Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSP.......................................... Highway Safety Plan
IFR.......................................... Interim Final Rule
LOTTR........................................ Level of Travel Time Reliability
MAP-21....................................... Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
MPH.......................................... Miles per hour
MPO.......................................... Metropolitan Planning Organizations
NAAQS........................................ National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCHRP........................................ National Cooperation Highway Research Program
NHFP......................................... National Highway Freight Program
NHPP......................................... National Highway Performance Program
NHS.......................................... National Highway System
NHTSA........................................ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NOX.......................................... Nitrogen oxide
NPMRDS....................................... National Performance Management Research Data Set
NPRM......................................... Notice of proposed rulemaking
O3........................................... Ozone
OMB.......................................... Office of Management and Budget
PM........................................... Particulate matter
PRA.......................................... Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
RIA.......................................... Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN.......................................... Regulatory Identification Number
SHSP......................................... Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SME.......................................... Subject matter experts
State DOTs................................... State departments of transportation
TMA.......................................... Transportation Management Areas
TMC.......................................... Traffic Message Channel
TTI.......................................... Texas Transportation Institute
U.S.C........................................ United States Code
VMT.......................................... Vehicle miles traveled
VOC.......................................... Volatile organic compound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach
This section of the NPRM summarizes DOT's engagement and outreach
with the public and with affected stakeholders during the NPRM
development process and the viewpoints they shared with DOT during
these consultations. Section III includes three sub-sections:
Sub-section A provides a general description of the
stakeholder consultation process;
Sub-section B describes the broader public consultation
process; and
Sub-section C summarizes stakeholder viewpoints shared
with DOT. This sub-section is organized sequentially around the three
major measurement focus areas of this rulemaking, including: (1) system
performance and traffic congestion measures, (2) freight movement
measures, and (3) on-road mobile source emissions measures.
Stakeholder engagement in developing the NPRMs is required by 23
U.S.C. 150(c) to enable DOT to obtain technical information as well as
information on operational and economic impacts from stakeholders and
the public. State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and private and non-
profit constituents across the country participated in the outreach
efforts. A listing of each contact or series of contacts influencing
the agency's position can be found in the docket.
A. Consultation with State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, and Other Stakeholders
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1), DOT consulted regularly
with affected stakeholders (including State DOTs, MPOs, industry
groups, 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 diverse opinions on the interpretation of
technical information on 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
[[Page 23813]]
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;
Attending meetings with non-DOT subject matter experts,
including task forces, advocacy groups, private industry, non-DOT
Federal employees, academia, etc., to discuss timelines, priorities,
and the most effective methods for implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; 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
comments and suggestions about the development of the performance
measures and by holding national online dialogues and listening
sessions to ask the public to post their ideas on national performance
measures, standards, and policies. The 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 plans to
hold public meetings to explain the provisions contained in these
NPRMs, including this NPRM. All such meetings will be open to the
public. However, all comments regarding the NPRM 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. 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 the theme most directly affected. The three
themes include:
Subparts E and G: Performance Management Measures to
Assess Performance of the National Highway System and for Assessing
Traffic Congestion.
Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures to
Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and
Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures for
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions.
1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subparts E and G: Performance
Management Measures To Assess Performance of the National Highway
System and For Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA separated the stakeholder comments on the performance and
congestion measures into four general areas, listed below and the
comments are summarized in each of those areas.
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Approaches
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Calculation
Methods
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges
a. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on System Performance and Traffic
Congestion Measurement Approaches
Stakeholders provided input to DOT on many different measure
approaches for assessing either performance on the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP or
assessing traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
program. In general, stakeholders' suggested approaches fell within the
following categories:
Speed and Traffic Flow-based Approaches--Some stakeholders
suggested continued use of traffic flow-based performance measures
already widely in use by transportation agencies. They suggested
several variations on traffic flow-based approaches including use of
``Level of Service'' classifications described in the Transportation
Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual, volume to capacity ratios, or
actual vehicle speeds relative to free-flow speeds. Some stakeholders
noted that data to support these measure approaches is widely
available.
Spatial and Temporal Extent of Congestion-based
Approaches--Some stakeholders suggested that the spatial or temporal
extent of congestion should be used as the basis for measuring
performance. Suggestions included measures of the portion of system
segments exceeding acceptable travel times and measures of how traffic
and freight in a corridor are balanced across parallel roads and other
modes. For a temporal-based measure, stakeholders suggested that this
information could be used to help plan strategies for moving traffic
from more congested to less congested routes or find the best ways to
increase corridor capacity.
System Throughput Efficiency and Vehicle Occupancy-based
Approaches--Some stakeholders suggested throughput or vehicle
occupancy-based measures of performance. Variations of throughput and
vehicle occupancy measures suggested by stakeholders included the
quantity of vehicles, goods, or people per lane hour or vehicle
occupancy rates. Stakeholders described ``spillover'' benefits from
improving throughput efficiency or vehicle occupancy including fewer
crashes, lower emissions, and lower demand for infrastructure. Some
stakeholders, however, noted that access to or availability of
throughput or occupancy data for non-highway modes is a challenge.
Travel Time-based Approaches--Many stakeholders suggested
that travel time should be used as the basis for measuring performance.
They offered many variations for characterizing travel time performance
including ``travel time per person,'' ``travel time per vehicle,''
``travel delay per person,'' ``travel delay per vehicle,'' and
``percent of commutes less than 30 minutes,'' as well as use of these
metrics to create planning time, travel time, travel slowness, or
travel reliability indices. Some stakeholders also noted that travel
time-based approaches might be adaptable for use in measuring transit,
pedestrian, or bicycle system performance as data collection methods
improve in the future. Many stakeholders who indicated support for
travel time-based approaches stressed the importance of travel time
reliability as a parameter that transportation users value highly. Some
stakeholders who favored travel time-based approaches suggested that
travel time measures are particularly relevant because travel time
generally varies more than travel distance and it can be
[[Page 23814]]
influenced by State DOTs' and MPOs' operations practices.
Accessibility and Trip Generation-based Approaches--Many
stakeholders indicated a preference for accessibility measures over
travel time-based measures as a basis for measuring performance.
Several stakeholders indicated a concern that travel time-based
measures emphasize mobility and may encourage dispersed land use
patterns; whereas accessibility measures would emphasize ease of access
to transportation options and consideration of where trips are
generated. Stakeholders suggested many variations for characterizing
accessibility or trip generation including ``vehicle trip rate per
household,'' ``transportation efficiency based on distance,'' ``miles
traveled per employee,'' ``vanpool passenger mileage,'' ``number of
employment locations reachable during rush hour within the travel time
of the average commute,'' ``average home to work commute time,''
``number of households able to reach businesses during off-peak hours
within a reasonable time,'' or ``time required to go from place to
place.'' Some proponents of accessibility measures also suggested these
measures may encourage greater consideration of non-auto travel modes
like transit, carpooling, vanpooling, walking, and bicycling or options
like telecommuting that tend to be more practical on systems with
greater accessibility.
b. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Calculation Methods
Stakeholders provided considerable input to DOT on detailed aspects
of measure calculation methods. In general, stakeholders' suggestions
fell within the following categories:
Geographic Focus for Measures--Some stakeholders suggested
performance measures should focus only on major corridors or in
urbanized areas. They noted that current practice emphasizes corridor-
level analysis and that the impact of heavily congested corridors may
be masked by system-wide measures that include mostly uncongested
system elements. Other stakeholders suggested that measures should
focus on optimizing overall system performance rather than facility
performance, with ``system'' being defined to include multimodal
facilities as well as highways. Some stakeholders, however, suggested
measures should be geographically scalable so that they can be used
either on individual facilities or at a system-wide level.
Temporal Focus for Measures--Some stakeholders suggested
that performance measures should place particular emphasis on peak
period travel to maximize productivity of roads during peak periods by
minimizing congestion, reducing growth in VMT, and using the most
cost[hyphen]effective methods to move people and goods. Other
stakeholders suggested measures should generally be scalable on a
temporal basis so they can be evaluated based on variable periods of
time, such as individual hours, or grouped into peak periods.
Travel Time Measurement Options--Stakeholders offered
several suggestions for developing effective travel time-based
measures:
--Selection of Travel Time Percentiles for Travel Reliability Index--
Some stakeholders suggested that when formulating a travel reliability
index, the 85th or 90th percentile travel time should be used rather
than the 95th percentile because the highest percentile travel times
may be outliers that do not reflect the impacts of day-to-day
operations strategies on the system.
--Use of Travel ``Slowness'' as an Index--Some stakeholders suggested
that reversing the widely used travel time index creates a more
understandable metric by expressing congestion in terms of how slowly
traffic is moving rather than in terms of how long trips take; they
suggested, as an example, that describing a facility or system as
operating at two-thirds of its desired performance (66.6 percent) is
more understandable than saying it has a travel time index of 1.50.
--Threshold Times for Travel Indices--Some stakeholders suggested that
free flow speed is appropriate to use in calculating travel time-based
indices. Other stakeholders indicated that free flow or posted speeds
are unrealistic because State DOTs lack resources to achieve free flow
conditions across their networks. ``Maximum throughput'' speed was
suggested by some stakeholders as an alternative to free flow speed
which they indicated is usually 70 to 85 percent of free flow but
varies by facility.
--Travel Time Data Collection--Some stakeholders suggested collecting
origin and destination travel time data via techniques such as license
plate surveys for vehicles or for other modes by riding bicycle or
transit corridors to collect data.
Methods for Improving Accuracy of Vehicle Occupancy
Counts--Some stakeholders who supported vehicle occupancy-based
measures suggested use of a combination of technology-based data
collection methods for improving the consistency of vehicle occupancy
data, such as automated video image processing or in-vehicle
technologies like seat belt detectors, and survey or counting
techniques, such as manual field counts, home interviews, transit rider
counts, census survey questions, or trip generation studies at
employment centers. Stakeholders noted that occupancy data collection
can be costly and may not need to be comprehensive to provide
reasonable estimates.
Use Census and American Community Survey Data--Some
stakeholders suggested U.S. Census data could be used to examine
performance, including information on commuting contained in the
Census. Other stakeholders also suggested DOT could work with the
Census to develop self-monitoring technologies, like Global Positioning
Systems (GPS), or to build on the model of the American Community
Survey and develop a continuous data collection resource for more
detailed commuting information. Some stakeholders suggested developing
standardized survey templates for communities to use for their own
travel surveys.
c. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles
Stakeholders provided DOT with input on general principles for
selecting measures. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within
the following categories:
Measures Should Be Simple To Understand--Many stakeholders
suggested that measures should be simple for the general public to
understand, with some further suggesting that travel time-based
measures, particularly travel reliability, are well understood by the
general public.
Measures Should Rely on Readily Available Data--Some
stakeholders suggested that measures should not include burdensome data
collection requirements and that data collection and analysis
requirements should be flexible and relevant to community needs. Some
stakeholders noted that investment is needed in resources such as
analysis tools and reporting mechanisms and guidance to make
performance measures meaningful and useful.
Measures Should Reflect MAP-21 National Goals--Some
stakeholders suggested that DOT should select a set of measures that
reflect MAP-21 national goals that benefit from reducing congestion
while providing safer, more
[[Page 23815]]
sustainable transportation systems that increase accessibility.
States Should Be Allowed To Select Measures/Avoid ``One-
Size-Fits-All'' Measures--Some stakeholders suggested that selection of
measures should be at the discretion of the State DOT or MPO, with
Federal requirements focusing on monitoring and reporting of States'
measures. It was also suggested that performance measures should not
follow a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach and should allow for
flexibility. Stakeholders noted that agencies have many options for
improving traffic conditions, not only by adding capacity, but also by
improving operations or reducing travel demand, and agencies' choices
will depend on unique constraints determined by available funding,
physical geography, and regional priorities. Stakeholders suggested
that FHWA should allow agencies to tell their ``story'' via customized
measures that reflect the unique strategies they use to manage
congestion. Other stakeholders suggested that differences in data
availability from place to place will preclude standardization and
reasoned that FHWA should allow variation in measures because this will
ensure agencies begin to assess performance.
Ensure Standardization of Measures--Some stakeholders
suggested that although allowing use of different measures is appealing
because it gives flexibility to States, it will also make national-
level analysis difficult. Based on this reasoning, these stakeholders
concluded that measures should be standardized.
Avoid Measures That Cause Policy Bias--Some stakeholders
suggested that the choice of measures (e.g., per vehicle mile or per
capita) will influence how communities prioritize projects. For
example, these stakeholders explained that policy decisions may be
different if the measure is based on per vehicle mile crashes or per
capita crashes because reporting changes in crashes per vehicle mile
fails to reflect reductions in total vehicle mileage.
Measures Should Capture Wider Impacts--Some stakeholders
suggested that performance metrics should capture the effects of
transportation investments on economic growth, efficient land use,
environment, and community quality of life, and should support
development of wider choices for solving congestion.
Measures for Individual Modes--Some stakeholders suggested
metrics should measure performance across transportation modes as a way
to encourage development of multimodal transportation solutions. Other
stakeholders expressed interest in measures that allow direct
comparison of the benefits and costs of all modes (e.g., transit,
transportation demand management, road construction, system
management). Stakeholders noted that if such metrics were pursued, they
should consider the full extent of externalities in the calculation of
costs. In particular, some stakeholders suggested that travel time-
based measures should take into account all parts of a trip (walking,
parking, driving, transit, etc.) to reflect overall transportation
network performance.
Measures Should Establish Minimum Acceptable Performance
Levels--Some stakeholders suggested that performance measures should
help transportation agencies identify where corridors fall below
minimum performance levels and help communities identify alternatives
that allow them to reach that minimum performance level.
Distinguish Between Congestion and Reliability--Some
stakeholders noted a distinction between recurrent congestion and
travel time reliability, noting that agencies typically have limited
control over recurrent congestion that is caused by physical capacity
constraints. On the other hand, stakeholders explained that reliability
can be influenced by efficient management of non-recurring incidents. A
focus on reliability, according to these stakeholders, would give
agencies credit for operational improvements that may improve travel
time reliability but do not necessarily increase capacity.
d. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges
Stakeholders provided DOT with input on perceived measurement
challenges. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within the
following categories:
Travel Time-based Measures Do Not Capture System
Accessibility Benefits--Some stakeholders expressed concern that
reliance on travel time-based measures alone may penalize densely
developed communities that offer high levels of accessibility but not
necessarily shorter travel times.
Measures Should Recognize That Reducing Congestion Is
Impractical in Some Regions--Some stakeholders suggested that measures
should acknowledge that, in fast growing areas, the rate of congestion
growth can only be slowed down, not reversed.
Some Measures May Favor Adding Road Capacity Over Non-Auto
Solutions to Congestion--Some stakeholders expressed concerns about
measure approaches they think are more likely to encourage road
capacity additions that generate sprawl and are expensive to maintain,
versus alternative solutions such as transit, carpools, bicycling,
telework, or shifting work hours. Measurement approaches for which this
concern was raised included measures that emphasize travel time per
mile or vehicle speeds. Other stakeholders suggested that land use is a
stronger influence on decisions to add road capacity than travel time
or vehicle speeds.
Target Setting for Congestion Is Premature--Some
stakeholders suggested that system (congestion) performance measurement
is one of the least mature and least robust measurement areas in
transportation and that developing consistent data sets and
understanding the patterns, causes, and trends in congestion is more
important than establishing targets. Stakeholders suggested that a set
of realistic performance targets should be determined locally (State
and region) only after trend data and explanatory variables have been
collected, analyzed, and made available for multiple years, thus
creating a transition period or phased implementation of congestion
related MAP-21 performance measurements.
System-wide Measures Do Not Support Project-Level
Decisionmaking--Some stakeholders expressed concern that national-level
measures of performance are not sufficient to guide specific
investments because they are not sensitive enough to capture the
results of specific strategies and projects.
2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart F: National Performance
Management Measures To Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System
Freight movement is multidimensional and includes a variety of
public and private stakeholders with unique perspectives. In addition
to the public participation and stakeholder consultation described in
Section III.A., of this NPRM, DOT held listening sessions with
representatives of the freight stakeholder community from the private
and public sectors. Outreach to stakeholders through these sessions
provided valuable information for FHWA to consider in developing the
proposed measures. The major themes collected from each session and
relevant academic research are detailed below.
Freight Roundtable
The FHWA held a Freight Roundtable event that brought together
membership of the Freight Policy Council, a group of the executive
leadership in each
[[Page 23816]]
operating administration at DOT, with multimodal industrial
representatives and State and local leaders. Discussion was focused on
freight planning and performance measurement. Panelists representing
the freight community provided insights into both planning and
measurement practices, issues, needs, and opportunities. Major themes
of the subsequent discussion focused on multimodal measurements
including reliability, trip time, access, safety, accident recovery,
and economic measures. Predominant measure suggestions included
reliability and travel time, which were described by a majority of
attendees as the most valuable to the freight system user in the
movement of goods.
State-Level Stakeholders
The FHWA held a listening session for State-level stakeholder
organizations as these organizations have followed MAP-21's development
and DOT's implementation activities and will have responsibility for
reporting on the measures. These State-level stakeholders have
advocated transportation-related policies and developed a significant
amount of transportation research and findings that have contributed to
the performance measure discussions surrounding MAP-21 implementation.
Their suggestions included measures such as travel time, reliability,
and bottleneck identification. Specifically, participants described
travel time, reliability and speed as important to understand economic
efficiency. Concern was expressed regarding data collection, cost, and
burden to the States. Additionally, participants noted concern about
external factors that are harder to measure or consider, as well as a
lack of control over measures for safety or economics, where States do
not want to be evaluated because they have little control in how to
influence the measure. There was some discussion on targets and
thresholds, noting that measuring speed and travel time against posted
speed would be challenging due to regulators on trucks that limit
speed, and variations in external factors would need to be considered
by States in setting targets.
In addition to the listening session, the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) performed a
comprehensive analysis of the MAP-21 provisions and wrote a letter that
contained recommendations approved by their membership for the MAP-21
Performance Measure Rulemaking. Other stakeholders and individuals
provided recommendations as well. These letters are all posted on the
docket for review. For freight movement on the Interstate, these
recommendations included the following:
National level performance measures may not be the same
performance measures State DOTs would use for planning and programming
of transportation projects and funding.
National level performance measures should be specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, timely, and simple.
National level performance measures should focus on areas
and assets where State DOTs have control.
The initial set of national-level performance measures
should build upon existing performance measures, management practices,
data sets, and reporting processes.
National level measures should be forward thinking to
allow continued improvement over time.
Messaging the impact and meaning of the national-level
measures to the public and other audiences is vital to the success of
this initiative.
Flexibility in target setting to allow States to set their
own thresholds and targets.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Regional Organizations
Like State-level stakeholders, MPO and regional organization
freight representatives provided input in the MAP-21 outreach process
for freight movement on the Interstate performance measures. In a
listening session held with these representatives, key themes were
consideration of hours of service for truck operators, economic
efficiency, job creation measures, environmental measures, congestion,
travel speed, and reliability. These stakeholders also identified
information from shippers as necessary for interpreting the user
perspective. Representatives supported travel time and reliability as
most critical for measurement and indicated that these measures were
most important for businesses in their regions.
Additional regional organization stakeholders, representing both
urban and rural areas, further called for consistency in the adoption
of measures that could best describe the freight system while
considering differences in mode, geography, locations of freight
facilities, and practices. Additional concerns were related to how to
adapt freight performance measures to current measures that may not
provide the correct picture of freight movement even though they are
good measures for passenger transport or some other function. Finally,
representatives supported measures that identified reliability and the
refinement and use of data for measuring reliability on freight
corridors.
Trucking Industry and Freight Business Stakeholders
The FHWA held listening sessions with stakeholders representing a
subset of the freight industry, primarily trucking, whose performance
would be measured as part of this rule. These stakeholders represent
various parts of the flow of goods from origin to destination and
depend on the freight system for on-time deliveries of goods. More
specifically, these stakeholders include professional truckers such as
corporate drivers, owner-operators, and retired truckers,
representatives of trucking companies, shippers, and related
businesses.
The main comments received from these stakeholders related to truck
parking, highway average speeds, bottlenecks, safety, oversize and
overweight inconsistencies, tolls, and delay. Average speed was
important to stakeholders because it provided drivers and industrial
planners with the information they needed to plan routes and delivery
schedules. Stakeholders identified reliability as important because it
provides the driver with the flexibility to plan routes and deliveries
by knowing what to expect at what time. One participant noted that it
is very difficult for a driver to say that average speed is more
important than travel time or reliability--this depends on time of day
or where the driver needs to go. The participant gave examples where he
could drive in and out of a metropolitan area without issue at one time
of day but have significant delays at other times. Time of day and
other external factors were said to be important when measuring
performance.
Some shipper and business owner comments, as well as those of their
own drivers, suggested that performance measures for freight include
safety, travel time, hours of service, trends of delay, speeds, and
connections to other modes or access. They said time was critical
because travel times are useful in planning deliveries. Further,
measuring trends of delay could help identify better opportunities for
route plans. These stakeholders noted that bottlenecks, speed, and
travel time information were important to measure and further,
identified speed as a useful measure for determining bottlenecks.
In April 2013, FHWA sought clarification from stakeholders on
[[Page 23817]]
comments made during the listening sessions, specifically on measure
thresholds and target setting. In subsequent outreach, the American
Trucking Association, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, and AASHTO primarily reiterated previous comments that, in
developing the measure, FHWA should balance the public and private
perspective by providing flexibility to States for assessing freight
movement and developing a measure that would be useful to the freight
industry.
a. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Approaches
Freight stakeholders provided diverse perspectives on approaches
for assessing freight movement on the Interstate System including the
use of measures based on accessibility, delay, speed, safety, parking
availability, bottleneck identification, accident recovery, consistency
in oversize/overweight vehicle practices, tolling practices, hours-of-
service for truck operators, environmental impacts, and economic
impacts. A common theme was the importance of speed, reliability, and
travel time measures to freight system users because they can use this
information to plan freight movements.
b. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges
Stakeholders provided input to DOT on the following perceived
measurement challenges:
Avoid Additional Burden for Agencies--Stakeholders
expressed concern regarding the cost and burden to the States of
freight data collection.
Lack of Control Over Performance Outcomes--Some
stakeholders noted concern about measuring and influencing external
factors, such as safety and economic impacts, where agencies have
little control over measure results.
Freight Measures are not the same as Broader System
Performance Measures--Some stakeholders expressed concern that broad
system-level measures of performance may not adequately represent
freight conditions.
c. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Methods
Stakeholders provided input to DOT on detailed aspects of measure
calculation methods. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within
the following categories:
Use of ``Posted Speed'' in Performance Measures--Some
stakeholders noted that posted speed is not a satisfactory baseline for
performance measures because of the use of embedded governors or speed
control devices companies install on trucks that limit speed and
variations in other external factors.
Reliability Thresholds--Stakeholders supported the use of
a reliability measure as it is universally used and understood among
transportation agencies and freight representatives. Reliability is
often measured in the form of an index such as a Planning Time Index or
Buffer Index, which both express a ratio of the worst travel time
compared to a free flow, normal day, or average travel time. Freight
stakeholders supported the numerator of a measurement index to be
defined as the 95th percentile because it represents the higher degree
of certainty for on-time arrival that freight stakeholders use in their
route planning and deliveries. Understanding the gap between normal
travel time and the 95th percentile will help to work toward
operational and capital strategies that will improve reliability.
Improving freight reliability is critical for freight stakeholders as
it lessens transportation costs associated with delay. Travel times
above a 95th percentile are usually attributed to unique and outlying
circumstances, such as a major accident or event that significantly
shuts down the roadway.
Measure Definitions--Stakeholders mentioned research by
the National Cooperation Highway Research Program (NCHRP), including
NCHRP Report 20-24 (37)G Technical Guidance for Deploying National
Level Performance Measures, that defines ``average speed'' as the
average speed of trucks over a 24-hour period and ``Reliability'' as
the ratio of the 95th percentile travel time to mean segment travel
time.
d. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles
Stakeholders provided DOT with some general principles for
selecting measures. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within
the following categories:
Flexibility in Measurement Approaches--Some stakeholders
suggested that national requirements for performance measurement should
be flexible enough to allow for variation in regional and State
geographic characteristics and modal options.
National Measures May Not Match State DOT's Measures--
National-level performance measures may not be the same performance
measures State DOTs would use for planning and programming of
transportation projects and funding.
Measures Should Address Issues that State DOTs Control--
National-level performance measures should focus on areas and assets
where State DOTs have control.
Measures Should Build on Past Experience--Stakeholders
emphasized that the initial set of national-level performance measures
should build upon existing performance measures, management practices,
data sets, and reporting processes.
Measures Should Allow Improvement Over Time--Stakeholders
suggested that national-level measures should be forward thinking to
allow continued improvement over time.
Measures Should be Accompanied by Communication--
Stakeholders suggested that messaging the impact and meaning of the
national-level measures to the public and other audiences is vital to
the success of this initiative.
Flexibility in Target Setting--Stakeholders suggested that
there should be flexibility in target setting to allow States to
establish their own thresholds and targets.
Specificity, Simplicity, and other General
Characteristics--Stakeholders advocated for specific, measurable,
attainable, realistic, and timely national level performance measures.
Additionally, stakeholders advocated for simplicity, arguing that
measures should be simple and easy to understand.
3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart H: National Performance
Management Measures for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program--On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
Stakeholders provided DOT with input on data collection and
reporting related to on-road mobile source emissions. Suggestions
generally fell in the following categories:
Consistency with Current CMAQ Reporting Requirements and
Practices--Some stakeholders suggested that on-road mobile source
emissions measures should be consistent with current CMAQ program
reporting requirements and practices because quantification of CMAQ
project-related emissions reductions is already required under 23
U.S.C. 149. Stakeholders emphasized that any new performance data and
reporting should be consistent with and build upon current practice.
Avoid Imposing Burdens on Areas in Attainment--Some
stakeholders suggested new measures should not burden those parts of
the country with monitoring when none is required by the Clean Air Act
(CAA). It was noted that States without nonattainment areas are exempt
from the burden of developing sophisticated emissions
[[Page 23818]]
analysis tools and should not be required to do so going forward.
Geographic Applicability of Reporting--Some stakeholders
suggested that emissions reporting should be limited solely to large
urbanized areas where air quality planning efforts are focused and most
CMAQ funding is directed. Other stakeholders suggested reporting also
should include small urban areas.
Emissions Reporting Methods--Stakeholders suggested
various analytic and empirical methods for performance measurement:
--Consistency with EPA or California Emissions Models--Performance
measures should be consistent with emissions modeling tools developed
by EPA (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator--MOVES) \6\ and the California
Air Resources Board (EMFAC).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator--MOVES: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.
\7\ California Air Resources Board (EMFAC): https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Applicability of EPA-recommended Sustainable Transportation
Measures--The EPA's ``Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance
Measures'' is a helpful resource for developing on-road mobile source
emission reporting approaches.
--Applicability of Envision Tomorrow ArcGIS Tool--Envision Tomorrow,\8\
which is an extension for ArcGIS, could be a helpful tool for creating
land-use scenarios and assessing their environmental and other impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Envision Tomorrow: https://www.envisiontomorrow.org/about-envision-tomorrow/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Region-specific Fleet Information--MPOs may wish to consider using
region specific fleet mix information when calculating emissions.
Agency Emissions Data Capabilities--Some stakeholders
cautioned that State DOTs and MPOs vary in their capabilities to
collect, replicate, and report data on an annual basis.
Emissions Reporting should Include Greenhouse Gases--It
was suggested that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be tracked since GHGs
are correlated with fuel use and air toxins.
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 transformation, and for the first time,
recipients of Federal-aid highway funds make transportation investments
to achieve individual targets that collectively make progress toward
national goals.
The MAP-21 provisions that focus on the achievement of performance
outcomes are contained in a number of sections of the law that are
administered by different DOT agencies. Consequently, these provisions
require an implementation approach that includes a number of separate
but related rulemakings, some from other modes within DOT. A summary of
the rulemakings related to this proposed rule is provided in this
section and additional information regarding all related implementation
actions is available on the FHWA Web site.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Summary of Related Rulemakings
The DOT's proposal regarding MAP-21's performance requirements will
be presented through several rulemakings. As a brief 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 has sought or plans to seek comment on each of
these rulemakings.
1. First Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule (FR Vol.81
No.50),\10\ Focused on Highway Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety
Improvement Program, 81 FR 13882 (Published on March 15, 2016)
(codified at 23 CFR part 490).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Propose and define national measures for the HSIP
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
targets
d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
e. Discuss how FHWA intends to implement MAP-21 performance-related
provisions.
2. Second Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule (RIN: 2125-
AF53),\11\ Focused on Highway Asset Conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Performance Management Measures Assessing Pavement
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program, 80 FR 325
(proposed January 5, 2015) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 490).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 standards for Interstate System pavement conditions.
3. Third Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule, Focused on
Assessing Performance of the NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate
System, and CMAQ (This NPRM)
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. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
targets for NHFP as well as the NHPP
e. Provide a summary of all three performance measures rules (Table 2
below lists all proposed measures and the entire Part 490 is in the
docket).
Table 2--Summary of Rulemakings To Implement the National Performance Management Measure Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed performance
Rulemaking 23 CFR Part 490 section measure Measure applicability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(1)............ Number of fatalities.... All public roads.
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(2)............ Rate of fatalities...... All public roads.
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(3)............ Number of serious All public roads.
injuries.
[[Page 23819]]
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(4)............ Rate of serious injuries All public roads.
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(5)............ Number of non-motorized All public roads.
fatalities and non-
motorized serious
injuries.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)............... Percentage of pavements The Interstate System.
of the Interstate
System in Good
condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)(2)............ Percentage of pavements The Interstate System.
of the Interstate
System in in Poor
condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)(3)............ Percentage of pavements The non-Interstate NHS.
of the non-Interstate
NHS in Good condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)(4)............ Percentage of pavements The non-Interstate NHS.
of the non-Interstate
NHS in Poor condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.407(c)(1)............ Percentage of NHS NHS.
bridges classified as
in Good condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.407(c)(2)............ Percentage of NHS NHS.
bridges classified as
in Poor condition.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(a)(1)............ Percent of the The Interstate System.
Interstate System
providing for Reliable
Travel.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(a)(2)............ Percent of the non- The non-Interstate NHS.
Interstate NHS
providing for Reliable
Travel.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(b)(1)............ Percent of the The Interstate System in
Interstate System where urbanized areas with a
peak hour travel times population over 1
meet expectations. million.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(b)(2)............ Percent of the non- The non-Interstate NHS
Interstate NHS where in urbanized areas with
peak hour travel times a population over 1
meet expectations. million.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.607(a)............... Percent of the The Interstate System.
Interstate System
Mileage providing for
Reliable Truck Travel
Time.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.607(b)............... Percent of the The Interstate System.
Interstate System
Mileage Uncongested.
System Performance PM NPRM: CMAQ - 490.707.................. Annual Hours of The NHS in urbanized
traffic congestion. Excessive Delay Per areas with a population
Capita. over 1 million in
nonattainment or
maintenance for any of
the criteria pollutants
under the CMAQ program.
System Performance PM NPRM: CMAQ-- 490.807.................. Total tons of emissions Projects financed with
On-road mobile source emissions. reduced from CMAQ CMAQ funds in all
projects for applicable nonattainment and
criteria pollutants and maintenance areas for
precursors. one or more of the
criteria pollutants
under the CMAQ program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Update to the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN:
2125-AF52) \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 79 FR 31784 (proposed June 2,
2014) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 450).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of other performance-based plans into the
metropolitan and statewide planning process
d. Discussion in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Improvement
Programs section 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 (FR
Vol.81 No.50) \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Highway Safety Improvement Program, 81 FR 13722 (published
on March 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (RIN: 2125-AF57) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Asset Management Plan, 80 FR 9231 (proposed on February,
20, 2015)(to be codified at 23 CFR part 515).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-AB20) \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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
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) \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Define transit safety standards
b. Transit safety plan content and reporting requirements.
[[Page 23820]]
9. Highway Safety Grant Programs Rule (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) Interim Final Rule \17\ (IFR), RIN: 2127-AL30,
2127-AL29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway
Grant Programs, Interim Final Rule, 78 FR 4986 (Jan. 23, 2013) (to
be codified at 23 CFR part 1200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Highway Safety Plan (HSP) contents, including establishment of
performance measures, targets, and reporting requirements
b. Review and approval of HSPs.
B. 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-aid highway 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 for 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.
1. National Goals
The MAP-21 sec. 1203 establishes national goals to focus the
Federal-aid highway program. The following national goals are codified
at 23 U.S.C. 150(b):
Safety--To achieve a significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-
State owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.
Infrastructure condition--To maintain the highway
infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.
Congestion reduction--To achieve a significant reduction
in congestion on the NHS.
System reliability--To improve the efficiency of the
surface transportation system.
Freight movement and economic vitality--To improve the
national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities
to access national and international trade markets, and support
regional economic development.
Environmental sustainability--To enhance the performance
of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural
environment.
Reduced project delivery delays--To reduce project costs,
promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and
goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in
the project development and delivery process, including reducing
regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.
These national goals will largely be supported through the
metropolitan and statewide planning process, which is discussed under a
separate rulemaking (RIN: 2125-AF52) to update the Metropolitan and
Statewide Planning Regulations at 23 CFR part 450.
2. 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposed to issue three rulemakings in sequence to
implement the measures for the areas listed above. The first
rulemaking, issued as a NPRM on March 11, 2014 and published as a final
rule on March 15, 2016, 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.
The second NPRM focused on the measures to assess the condition of
pavements and bridges, and this third NPRM proposes measures for the
remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
The FHWA had proposed in the prior performance management NPRMs to
establish one common effective date for its three performance measure
final rules. While FHWA recognizes that one common effective date could
be easier for State DOTs and MPOs to implement, the process to develop
and implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures
required in MAP-21 has been lengthy. It is taking more than 3 years
since the enactment of MAP-21 to issue all three performance measure
NPRMs (the first performance management NPRM was published on March 11,
2014; the second NPRM was published on January 5, 2015). Rather than
waiting for all three rules to be final before implementing the MAP-21
performance measure requirements, FHWA has decided to phase in the
effective dates for the three final rules for these performance
measures so that each of the three performance measures rules will have
individual effective dates. This allows FHWA and State DOTs to begin
implementing some of the performance requirements much sooner than
waiting for the rulemaking process to be complete for all the rules.
The FHWA believes that individual implementation dates will also help
State DOTs transition to performance based planning.
On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50)
covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking. With the staggered effective dates,
the Rule will be implemented in its entirety before the other two rules
are finalized.
Based on the timing of each individual rulemaking, FHWA would
provide additional guidance to stakeholders on how to best integrate
the new requirements into their existing processes. Under this
approach, FHWA expects that even though the implementation for each
rule would occur as each final rule is published, implementation for
the second rule would ultimately be aligned with the third rule through
a common
[[Page 23821]]
performance period. In the second performance management measure NPRM,
FHWA proposed that the first 4-year performance period would start on
January 1, 2016. However, FHWA proposes in this NPRM that the first
performance period would begin on January 1, 2018. This would align the
performance periods and reporting requirements for the proposed
measures in the second and third performance management measure NPRMs.
The FHWA has placed on the docket a timeline that illustrates how this
transition could be implemented. However, FHWA seeks comment from the
public on what an appropriate effective date(s) could be. 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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 was proposed in the second rulemaking.\20\ 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 proposed in a separate rulemaking to establish an
Asset Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57) for the NHS.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
\21\ 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.\22\ 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 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regard to the Federal Lands Transportation Program, FHWA
anticipates working with eligible Federal entities to establish
performance measures.
3. Targets
The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets
reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program
\23\ and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these
measures where applicable.\24\ The first NPRM proposed the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety
performance targets, and was published as a final rule on March 15,
2016. The second NPRM and the third Federal-aid highway measure NPRM
discusses 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.\25\ A separate rulemaking to
update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN 2125-
AF52) at 23 CFR 450 discusses this coordination requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
\24\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
\25\ 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 11 core highway safety program outcome measures in the
State HSP, which NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final
Rule,\26\ and for recipients of public transportation Federal funding
and MPOs to establish state of good repair and safety targets.\27\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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). An eleventh core outcome
measure for bicycle fatalities was added after the publication of
the Interim Final Rule and is available at https://www.ghsa.org/html/resources/planning/.
\27\ 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Plans
A number of provisions within MAP-21 require States and MPOs to
develop plans that provide strategic direction for addressing
performance needs. For the Federal-aid highway program these provisions
require: State DOTs to develop an Asset Management Plan; \28\ State
DOTs to update their SHSP; \29\ MPOs serving large TMAs in areas of
nonattainment or maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan; \30\
MPOs to include a System Performance Report in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan; \31\ and State DOTs and MPOs to include a
discussion, to the maximum extent practical, in their Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as to how the program would achieve the
performance targets they have established for the area.\32\ In
addition, State DOTs are encouraged to develop a State Freight Plan
\33\ to document planned activities and investments with respect to
freight. This rulemaking does not discuss any requirements to develop
or how to use these plans, with the exception of some discussion of the
CMAQ Performance Plan. Rather, a discussion on the development and use
of these plans will be included in the respective rulemakings or
guidance 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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(2).
\29\ 23 U.S.C. 148(d).
\30\ 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
\31\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).
\32\ 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).
\33\ MAP-21, sec. 1118.
\34\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Reports
The MAP-21 sec. 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 a State DOT's asset management
plan for the NHS, progress in achieving targets, and ways in which a
State DOT is addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks.\35\ 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 second Performance Measure NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional progress reporting is required under the CMAQ program,
Metropolitan transportation planning, elements of the Public
Transportation Act of 2012, and the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety
Improvement Act of 2012. Also, State DOTs should include a system
performance report in their statewide transportation plan. These
reporting provisions are discussed in separate rulemakings and guidance
and are not discussed in this rulemaking, with the exception of some
reporting required by MPOs as part of the CMAQ program.
[[Page 23822]]
6. 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, and one provision
within FAST Act (Section 1116 codified at 23 U.S.C. 167(j)) under NHFP
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. The FAST Act Section 1406 modified the NHPP
significant progress language and added language for the NHFP.
Accordingly, for NHPP and NHFP, if the State DOT has not achieved or
made significant progress toward the achievement of applicable targets
in a single FHWA biennial determination, then the State DOT must
document in its next biennial report the actions it will take to
achieve the targets.
Please note that FHWA proposes in section 490.109(e) that FHWA
would consider a State DOT has made significant progress toward the
achievement of an NHPP or NHFP target when either: (1) The actual
condition/performance level is equal to or better than the State DOT
established target; (2) or the actual condition/performance is better
than the State DOT identified baseline of condition/performance. So the
term ``achieved or made significant progress'' is synonymous with the
term ``made significant progress'' throughout this NPRM. This provision
is discussed in the second performance measure NPRM and in this NPRM.
For the HSIP, if the State DOT does not achieve or make significant
progress for 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.\36\ The first performance
measure NPRM discussed this provision, and it is codified in the final
rule that covers the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking published on March 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 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.\37\ This provision was discussed in
the second performance measure NPRM, which proposed pavement and bridge
performance measures for the NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 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.\38\ If the State DOT does not
meet these special rules, which contain minimum performance standards,
then it must dedicate a portion of HSIP funding (in the case of the
high risk rural road special rule) or document in their SHSP actions it
intends to take to improve performance (in the case of the older driver
and pedestrian special rule). Guidance on how FHWA will administer
these two special rules is provided on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 23 U.S.C. 148(g).
\39\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehrrr.cfm and
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guideolder.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. 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. In this regard, 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 will 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 the 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 decisionmakers 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 the entity required to establish the 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 will be learning a great deal as
implementation occurs.
The FHWA considered these principles in this and previous NPRMs and
encourages comments on the extent to which the 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
[[Page 23823]]
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
This section of the NPRM summarizes the process FHWA used to
consider potential performance measures, including alternate data
sources and potential measures. The FHWA's analysis was based on
consideration of viewpoints from several sources including:
Knowledge of technical experts within DOT and FHWA on the
current state of practice for measuring system performance, freight
movement, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions;
Information provided by external stakeholders received
directly or captured as part of organized stakeholder listening
sessions;
Information provided by external stakeholders received
indirectly through informal contact such as telephone calls, email, or
letters; and
Measures that have been recommended and documented in
nationally recognized reports such as the assessment of measurement
readiness documented in the 2011 final report for NCHRP Project 20-
24(37)G, ``Technical Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance
Measurements.''
Compared with the two previous NPRMs in this series, the
measurement areas covered by this NPRM are more varied from State to
State; consequently, stakeholders' consensus about approaches for
measuring performance is inconsistent. To aid its analysis of alternate
measurement options for this NPRM specifically, FHWA relied on an
expanded set of qualitative criteria (which supplement the assessment
factors/criteria utilized in the other performance measure NPRMs) to
ensure that a set of measures established through this rulemaking would
allow for:
A national performance story to be communicated in a
credible and reliable manner;
State DOTs and MPOs to consider their unique expectations
of desirable performance;
The potential for use across multiple surface
transportation modes;
One core set of data to be used to assess system
performance, traffic congestion, and freight movement; and
The potential utilization of new data as technology
progresses.
Section V includes three sub-sections, which describe FHWA's
assessment of measures using the expanded set of criteria as well as
the assessment factors and criteria used in the two previous
performance measure NPRMs:
Sub-Section A--Analysis and assessment of potential data
sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring
system performance and traffic congestion;
Sub-Section B--Analysis and assessment of potential data
sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring
freight movement, and
Sub-Section C--Analysis and assessment of potential data
sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring
on-road mobile source emissions.
Also, each sub-section below describes FHWA's evaluation of the
measures using a common methodology to identify gaps that could impact
successful implementation of proposed performance measures.
A. Selection of Measures for Subparts E and G--System Performance and
Traffic Congestion
This sub-section describes FHWA's analysis of data types, sources,
and measurement methods to support potential measures. We also include
a brief history of, and lessons learned from, FHWA's research on
congestion and reliability performance measures. Lastly, this sub-
section describes FHWA's assessment of proposed measures including: (1)
Percentage of system providing for reliable travel times; (2)
percentage of system providing where peak hour travel times meet
expectations; and (3) annual excessive delay per capita.
System Performance and Traffic Congestion Data Types and Sources
Considered by FHWA
The FHWA considered several potential data sources for use in
measuring system performance and traffic congestion including travel
speed and time data, travel volume data, vehicle throughput data, and
other trip information on data.
Travel Speed or Travel Time Data--Many State DOTs, MPOs, local
agencies, and travel corridor partnerships make use of vehicle speed
and travel time data sets to manage system operations or report
performance. The FHWA recognizes that travel time or speed does not
provide information on the purpose of trip, trip origin and
destination, transportation mode, or occupancy rates. However, FHWA has
been working to advance the quality of this data. One way FHWA has done
this is by acquiring and making available to State and local
governments a national travel time data set, the NPMRDS, to support
national, State, and local system performance and congestion reporting,
research and analysis needs. At this time, FHWA finds that the NPMRDS
is the only national travel speed and travel time data source available
to State DOTs and MPOs that could reliably support all the performance
reporting needs of this rulemaking.
Traffic Volume Data--All State DOTs report annual average daily
traffic (AADT) for all Federal-aid eligible roadways to FHWA's HPMS
database. All State DOTs also voluntarily provide monthly counts of
AADT to FHWA, which FHWA uses to produce monthly national traffic
volume trend information.\40\ The FHWA believes, however, that traffic
volume data offers an incomplete picture of either system performance
or traffic congestion because it lacks information about traffic volume
by specific times of the day, and because volume counts are based on
information collected at a limited number of locations. As these
weaknesses do affect the accuracy or value of volume counts, FHWA
concluded that volume data would be a poor choice as the sole data
source for measuring system performance or traffic congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ FHWA Traffic Volume Trends: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic Throughput Data--Some researchers and practitioners have
used data on the total number of vehicles or persons passing through a
specific
[[Page 23824]]
location during a defined time period to measure system performance
and/or traffic congestion. The FHWA believes that performance
throughput data is not widely available at a national level nor is it
routinely measured on a system-wide basis in States. However, we seek
comment on the use and availability of performance throughput data.
To measure throughput on the NHS would require near constant
vehicle count/volume data that does not exist today except for a very
limited number of locations (usually those locations where HPMS
requires reporting of volume). Person count data, which would be used
for measuring person throughput, is typically based on vehicle
occupancy which is typically reported as an average based on surveys
(including the U.S. Census) or as a set multiplier to vehicles (e.g.,
1.1 occupants per vehicle), although limited counts at single locations
on roadways are often undertaken. Classification of vehicles data (for
assigning person trips) is also available in a very limited number of
locations and would be required for measuring the number of people in
buses or vans, for example.
The FHWA concludes that an almost complete lack of data
availability makes throughput data impractical as a measure of
performance. The FHWA recognizes, however, that improvements in traffic
data collection technologies could offer the potential to measure
throughput on a system-wide basis in the future.
Other/Trip Information--The FHWA also considered various
alternative data types related to trip characteristics that offer
insights on system performance and traffic congestion such as typical
travel times, trip purpose, and trip origin and destination
information. This data is generally collected using surveys, such as
the American Community Survey, or regional travel surveys produced by
MPOs that sample a statistically representative portion of all
travelers. Although surveys of this kind can provide valuable
information to help plan and manage transportation demand, FHWA
believes the information captured could not easily be used to support a
national performance measure because these surveys are administered
infrequently and are not referenced to specific locations.
A summary of FHWA's analysis of the viability of various data types
to support national measures to assess system performance and traffic
congestion is provided in Table 3 below:
Table 3--Summary Assessment of Data Types for Use in Support of National Measures To Assess System Performance and Traffic Congestion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National data source Considered for the proposed
Information source available? Update frequency Granularity rule?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed or Travel Time.............. Yes........................... Monthly....................... Roadway segment...... Yes.
Traffic Volume.................... Yes........................... Annual........................ Roadway segment...... Yes.
Throughput........................ No............................ Varies........................ Specific Corridors... No.
Trip Information.................. Yes........................... Annual........................ Regional............. No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the discussion in this section, FHWA considered use of
travel time, speed, or traffic volume data to support measures for
system performance and traffic congestion.
Request for comments: FHWA recognizes limitations in the
availability of data could be resolved in the future with technology
advancement. The FHWA seeks comments on potential data sources and
technologies related to system performance and traffic congestion
measures, including:
1. Trip Information Data: The FHWA is seeking comments on
approaches for gathering travel, trip origin and destination,
transportation mode, or occupancy rates information on a routine and
system-wide basis.
2. Throughput Data: The FHWA is seeking comment on approaches for
gathering throughput data for traffic congestion that would capture the
total number of travelers passing through segments that make up a full
system on a regular basis.
3. Survey Data: The FHWA recognizes that survey data available
today offers only limited application to the development of performance
measures; technologies available to capture large volumes of data on
the movement of people could provide the potential to capture trip-
related information that could be useful in managing transportation
performance. The FHWA is seeking comment on approaches that can be used
to capture trip-related information on a more routine and system-wide
basis.
System Performance and Traffic Congestion Measures Considered by FHWA
The FHWA identified and considered a variety of approaches to
express travel time, speed, or traffic volume data as measures of
system performance or traffic congestion including travel delay, a
travel time index, travel time, travel time reliability, or Level of
Service. A summary of how these suggestions and approaches were
considered by FHWA is provided below:
Travel Delay-Based Measure--Delay is typically a corridor or
system-level indicator of additional travel time or slower travel speed
when compared to the desired time or the desired speed of travel; it is
easily understood by transportation users and is meaningful, expressed
in terms of lost time, for all modes of surface transportation. The
FHWA finds that many operating agencies use delay metrics to report on
and manage system performance; however, the definition of delay varies
among agencies. The FHWA acknowledges that delay measures do not
capture system performance attributes in terms of shorter trips or
better access to destinations and modal options, which may occur at the
expense of greater delay. For example, transportation priorities in a
region may focus on land use decisionmaking that concentrates
populations, resulting in reduced speeds but improving access to
destinations and modal options. The FHWA considered these concerns in
the design of measures based on delay.
Travel Time Index Measure--A travel time index compares actual
travel time for a road segment (typically during the peak period)
relative to a reference travel time. The FHWA finds that travel time
indices are widely used to report on and manage system performance and
traffic congestion. As with delay metrics, FHWA acknowledges that
travel time indices do not capture system attributes in terms of
shorter trips or better access to destinations and mode options, which
may occur at the expense of greater delay. Recognizing that a free-flow
speed-based reference travel time may not support regional and local
planning policies, FHWA believes it is appropriate for individual State
DOTs and/or MPOs to establish reference travel times that support local
priorities for certain types of measures.
[[Page 23825]]
The FHWA believes that the use of an index provides an effective means
to normalize travel times so that the performance can be evaluated
across different roadway segments and used to calculate a national
performance measure.
Travel Time-Based Measure--A measure calculated using a travel
time-based metric would report actual travel times for origin-
destination pairs rather than comparing actual travel time to a
reference travel time. The FHWA believes that use of travel time by
itself as a metric or measure would be difficult for the public to
understand without also knowing the associated origin-destination
information. The FHWA believes that the use of an index that compares
actual travel time to expected travel time is more meaningful to the
public.
Travel Time or Speed Reliability Measure--This measure would
compare the longest travel time or slowest speed that occurs during a
specified time frame to a reference travel time or speed for a
transportation facility. A reliability measure is an indication of the
extra time a traveler must add to their trip in order to have a high
degree of certainty that they will arrive at their destination on time.
The FHWA finds that travel time reliability measures are widely used to
report on and manage system performance. The FHWA also notes two
important refinements that strengthen travel time reliability measures:
(1) Some agencies exclude the top 20 percent of longest travel times
throughout the year because these travel times typically are due to
extreme events that are beyond an agency's control and should not be
considered in the assessment of overall system performance; and (2) The
reference travel time used in a reliability measure often reflects
travel time associated with typical or average travel speeds rather
than the time associated with free flow travel speeds.
Level of Service-Based Measure--Some transportation agencies assess
the performance of their highways by comparing existing traffic volume
to the capacity for which those highways are designed in a measure that
is typically referred to as the Level of Service. This approach assumes
that as traffic volume reaches the capacity of the system, performance
is reduced. However, FHWA believes that an agency can often use
operations strategies such as ramp metering or High Occupancy Vehicle
lanes to avoid or reduce performance impacts as traffic volume
approaches capacity. The FHWA also believes that data on traffic volume
information is not sufficiently available on all segments of roadways
at all times of the day to use as the only basis for the development of
national performance measures.
Impact-Based Measures--Some transportation agencies and planning
organizations use measures to report the estimated impacts of increased
travel times or reduced travel speeds such as wasted fuel, the value of
lost time, or commuter stress levels. The FHWA finds, however, that the
information to support such measures is not directly measurable,
thereby requiring the use of algorithms that would be difficult to
develop in a reliable manner.
A summary of FHWA's analysis of the different approaches for
expressing travel time, travel speed, and/or traffic volume considered
as part of its efforts to develop measures to assess system performance
and traffic congestion is provided in Table 4 below.
Table 4--Summary of Assessment of Approaches for Expressing Travel Time, Travel Speed, and Traffic Volume
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of stakeholder Considered for the proposed
Approach interest rule? Considerations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delay........................... Mixed....................... Yes.........................
Travel Time as an Index......... Low......................... Yes......................... Use of an agency
defined
threshold.
Travel Time..................... Mixed....................... No..........................
Travel Time Speed Reliability... High........................ Yes......................... Consider non-
recurring
congestion tied
to extreme
events.
Level of Service................ Low......................... No..........................
Impacts......................... Very Low.................... No..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA Congestion and Reliability Performance Measure Research and
Analysis
The FHWA has been researching performance measures for congestion,
mobility, and reliability for over 10 years. The Urban Congestion
Report \41\ and Freight Performance Measurement (FPM) \42\ have focused
on producing performance measures from a variety of sources over the
years. Initially, FHWA's research calculated travel times from speed
data derived from sensors in or along the roadway, including loop
detectors, side-fired radar detectors, video detection, etc. The FHWA
research then developed a variety of measures that could be used for
trend analysis, such as the Planning Time Index (95th percentile travel
time versus free flow travel time) that focuses on the variability (or
reliability) of travel day to day, and hours of congestion (hours of
day where travel on freeways is under 45 mph), among other measures.
The measures were aggregated from roadway sections up to urbanized
area-wide measure as well as national measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/ucr/ ucr/.
\42\ https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/perform_meas/#fhwa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two issues identified through this research are important to
understanding the ultimate approach FHWA proposes for the MAP-21
performance measures related to congestion and system reliability.
First, the advent of readily available vehicle-based probe travel time
data in recent years has led to a transformation of traveler
information and performance measure development. Vehicle-based probe
travel time data is derived from in-vehicle, GPS-based probes,
including track fleet management devices, navigation units, and cell
phones that report location information and time. The travel times are
either derived directly from speed data provided or calculated based on
a probe's trip progress (deriving speeds from the amount of time taken
to travel between two locations and the distance between the two
locations). Because data on the entire NHS is available from actual
measurements tied to a date, time, and location on specific roadway
segments, congestion performance measurement can be much more accurate,
widespread, and detailed. This data also provides the potential to
undertake before/after evaluations of transportation projects and
strategies.
Since the passage of MAP-21, the FHWA acquired vehicle-based probe
travel time data from a private vendor
[[Page 23826]]
for the entire NHS, and acquired the rights for State DOTs and MPOs to
also use the data. The data set, the NPMRDS, delivers travel time data,
averaged every 5 minutes of every day of the year every month. Travel
times are reported for freight-only and for all traffic, which includes
all probe data available (passenger, freight, fleet, taxis, etc.).
The second issue FHWA identified is that aggregating measures up to
a national level provides important national trend information but has
limited direct correlation to how money is being spent on road
improvements that may actually affect changes in the measure. The FHWA
has been advocating the use of performance measures at a local level as
best practice in recent years. Operating and planning agencies can
better understand how a project affects performance on a section of
roadway or how a facility or corridor operates during peak periods or
weather events using local performance measures, rather than
aggregating measure up to a regional, State, or national level.
Applicability of Measures
The FHWA analysis of measures included applicability of measures to
the transportation network or geographic area. Section 1203 of MAP-21
directed FHWA to establish measures for States to use to assess the
performance of the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS. For
assessing performance of the non-Interstate NHS, FHWA believes it is
important that at least one of the selected measures relate to the
entire NHS. Since system reliability is identified as one of the
National Goals (23 U.S.C. 150(b)(4)), FHWA decided it was appropriate
to establish a reliability-based measure for the entire NHS.
Accordingly, the NHPP Performance of the System reliability measure is
calculated for the entire NHS.
Another important component of System Performance is congestion,
and typically, but not exclusively, the worst congestion occurs on
high-volume roads in urbanized areas. The FHWA thought it was important
to capture this type of congestion in a measure so that urbanized areas
would be able to monitor and address congestion issues. The Peak Hour
Travel Time measure was developed to provide this information, limiting
the reporting to the largest urbanized areas (over 1,000,000 in
population). In selecting this measure, FHWA considered the national
goal of congestion reduction, which asks to achieve a significant
reduction in congestion on the NHS. 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(3). The FHWA
believes the Peak Hour Travel Time measure is consistent with this
national goal. The Peak Hour Travel Time measure also gives agencies in
the affected urbanized areas the ability to relate their measure to
their NHS roadway operational and investment policies by allowing them
to set the ``Desired Peak Period Travel Time'' on their NHS roadways.
Consistent with the purpose of the CMAQ program to fund
transportation projects and programs that will contribute to attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS in areas designated as nonattainment and
maintenance, FHWA believes that the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measure
should apply to nonattainment and maintenance areas and relate to the
goals of the CMAQ Program (to improve air quality and relieve
congestion). To reduce the burden on some States DOTs and MPOs and to
focus on areas where typically the worst congestion occurs, like the
System Performance congestion measure, FHWA chose to limit this measure
to urbanized areas over 1,000,000 in population as well, since those
agencies typically have more capability and experience in assessing
traffic congestion. In addition, these areas are the same areas where
MPOs will need to report on the CMAQ measures as part of a performance
plan under 23 U.S.C. 149(l). Similar to the System Performance
congestion measure, FHWA also chose a measure that would be consistent
with the national goal of congestion reduction.
Based on a thorough review of data, measure definitions,
calculation methods, applicability, and national goals, FHWA identified
three potential measures to assess system performance and traffic
congestion that deserved further consideration including: Percentage of
system providing for reliable travel times; percentage of system where
peak hour travel times meet expectations; and annual excessive delay
per capita.
The FHWA analyzed these proposed measures for system performance
and traffic congestion in tandem as part of this rulemaking so they
would provide (1) a complete national picture of system reliability;
(2) a focus on urbanized area peak hour congestion; and (3) a focus on
the worst traffic delays in air quality nonattainment areas and
maintenance areas. In addition, FHWA ensured that the proposed measures
(and related metrics) were defined so that their methodologies could be
applicable at the same segment, corridor, facility, or other level,
resulting in fine grain performance information suitable for supporting
the investment decisionmaking process at the statewide, metropolitan,
and local levels. Finally, FHWA focused on using as much actual,
observed data as is available to develop these measures. Together,
these three measures provide a comprehensive picture of system
performance, reliability and traffic congestion nationwide, both on the
entire NHS and with a focus on areas that typically have the worst
congestion.
Assessment of Proposed Measures for Subparts E and G (System
Performance and Traffic Congestion)
The FHWA used a common methodology of 12 criteria to assess the
appropriateness of each measure for national use and the readiness to
implement the performance measure accurately and reliably.
(A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive performance
outcomes?
(A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership with key
stakeholders?
(A3) Can the measure accommodate changes in the future?
(A4) Can the measure be used to support investment decisions,
policy making, and target establishment?
(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends?
(A6) Is collection, storage, and reporting of measure data
feasible?
(B1) Timeliness
(B2) Consistency
(B3) Completeness
(B4) Accuracy
(B5) Accessibility
(B6) Data Integration
Each performance measure, as used in current practice, was assessed
against the 12 criteria using the following three ratings for each
criterion.
Green Rating--Criterion is fully met for the candidate measure
Yellow Rating--Criterion is partially met for the candidate
measure and work is underway to fully meet it the criterion
Red Rating--Criterion is not fully met or no work is underway
or planned that would allow the criterion to be met
The FHWA used the results of this assessment to identify gaps that
FHWA could address through this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness
of the measures in this NPRM. The rulemaking docket contains a
description of the methodology used for this assessment. Table 5 below
summarizes the results of the assessment for the proposed performance
management measures for system performance and traffic congestion.
[[Page 23827]]
Table 5--Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures for System Performance and Traffic Congestion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Percentage of
system providing system where peak Annual hours of
Assessment factor for reliable hour travel times excessive delay
travel meet expectations per capita
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive G G Y
performance outcomes?..............................
(A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership Y Y Y
with key stakeholders?.............................
(A3) Is the measure maintainable to accommodate G G G
changes?...........................................
(A4) Can the measure be used to support investment G G G
decisions, policy making and target establishment?.
(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance G G G
trends?............................................
(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to G G G
collect, store, and report data in support of the
measures been considered?..........................
(B1) Timeliness..................................... G G G
(B2) Consistency.................................... G G G
(B3) Completeness................................... Y Y Y
(B4) Accuracy....................................... G G G
(B5) Accessibility.................................. G G G
(B6) Data Integration............................... G G G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The factors that were assessed at a green level for the proposed
measures were considered by FHWA in its choice of approach for system
performance and traffic congestion measures. The FHWA also considered
the factor assessed at yellow (B3--completeness) for all three measures
as probe data is available on most of the NHS, but there are still some
times of day and locations where data is not consistently available via
the NPMRDS data set that FHWA is requiring for use for these measures.
The FHWA believes that over time, as more probe data sources are added
to the data set, that missing travel times will be minimized.
The FHWA proposal outlined in this NPRM attempts to address some of
the gaps that exist today for the lower rated factors so that, when the
new requirements are implemented, the measures result in an improved
assessment rating, thereby better supporting national programs. In
particular, FHWA factored the following considerations in its decision:
Criterion A1--recognize that the Traffic Congestion
measure (Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita) should ideally
reflect the movement of all travelers and the performance of all modes.
As proposed, the measure may not capture modal options or better
accessibility. The FHWA is seeking comment on methods that can be used
reliably to achieve this outcome.
Criterion A2--recognize that a national measure is not in
place for either system performance or traffic congestion and no
national pilot studies have been conducted. However, FHWA and many
State DOTs and MPOs have developed their own system performance/
congestion measures and these were considered in developing the
national measures.
The specifics of these proposals are described in the Section-by-
Section portion of this proposed rule.
B. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart F--Freight Movement on
the Interstate System
This sub-section describes the FHWA's analysis of a range of data
types and sources and measurement methods to support potential freight
movement-related measures and describes FHWA's assessment of two
proposed measures including: (1) Percent of Interstate System mileage
meeting the goal for reliability; and (2) percent of Interstate System
mileage considered uncongested (by speed). The FHWA assessed both these
proposed measures in terms of appropriateness as national measures and
readiness for implementation.
The FHWA selected reliability and average speed measures because
they offered the best understanding of freight performance at the
national level and had the widest support from stakeholders. The FHWA
seeks to refine the use of freight-related measures in the future and
broaden measures and data sources that can better inform future policy,
programming, and investment decisions and provide a multimodal
consideration of freight flow.
Freight Movement Data Types and Sources Considered by FHWA
The FHWA recognizes that the efficient movement of freight is
important to the Nation's economy. Efficiency is hindered by slow
speeds and unreliable travel times caused by congested highways. For
the freight industry, slow and unreliable travel results in diminished
productivity by reducing the efficiency of operations, increasing costs
of goods, increasing fuel costs, reducing drivers' available hours for
service, and reducing equipment productivity. Reducing highway
congestion could produce important benefits for the freight industry
and contribute to our Nation's growing economy. Solutions must address
the long-term and short-term freight needs and depend on participation
from both the public and private sectors to fully understand
performance and develop strategic solutions.
Historically, congestion data collection efforts focused
exclusively on commuting in urbanized areas. To improve availability of
freight data, FHWA launched the FPM program in 2002. This program
collects truck travel-time data on major freight-significant corridors,
intercity pairs along those corridors, and major U.S. international
land-border crossings. Data are collected from embedded probe
technology in approximately 600,000 trucks and are used to provide a
range of performance measures including but not limited to travel
times, speeds, congestion points, incident analysis, and diversions.
Although FPM itself is not a system improvement, it is a mechanism for
collecting and analyzing data to assist national, State, regional, and
local transportation agencies in better measuring and managing highway
transportation system performance. The availability of FPM data has the
potential to inform future investment decisions that produce benefits
of regional and national significance.
[[Page 23828]]
The FPM program complements other efforts by FHWA to monitor and
measure urban congestion. Combining FPM data with urban congestion data
such as HPMS data, economic data from the Freight Analysis Framework,
and other relevant data provides a more complete picture of surface
transportation system performance and identifies areas where
performance could be improved. To provide a comprehensive understanding
of freight performance in concert with passenger and total traffic
congestion and performance, FHWA procured the NPMRDS in 2013, which
provides travel times for all traffic, passenger, and freight with an
archive of data beginning in October 2011. The FPM probe data is the
freight data that is included in the NPMRDS travel time data. States
and MPOs are currently using this data set to develop performance
measures and support freight planning and other transportation plans.
This data set allows a more comprehensive understanding of congestion
for all types of traffic through the calculation of speed, reliability,
and travel time on corridors with significant freight movement. As
mentioned above, there is widespread support among stakeholders for
these types of measures (e.g., speed, reliability, travel time).
However, FHWA recognizes that a true picture of freight performance
must reflect the multimultimodal nature of freight. In addition to
efforts to implement the performance requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150,
FHWA expects to continue work currently underway with other modes and
public and private freight stakeholders to develop new data
opportunities and create additional measures to provide a multimodal
and economic assessment of freight. These efforts would further an
understanding of freight performance that will support other freight-
related provisions within MAP-21 such as freight planning. This work,
in addition to FHWA's current efforts for the FPM program, will provide
a clearer picture of the total supply chain and goods movement system
so that improvements can be even more precisely targeted.
Freight Movement Measures Considered by FHWA
The FHWA focused its evaluation of measures for 23 U.S.C. 150 for
freight movement on Interstate on its significant research and
leadership in FPM development through the FPM program, and stakeholder
input. The FHWA recognizes that freight performance is best depicted by
a series of measures to provide a comprehensive picture of freight
movement. Stakeholders discussed multimodal measures and suites of
measures to show performance in all aspects of freight movement. As the
measures required for this rulemaking are only for freight movement on
the Interstate System, FHWA is addressing stakeholder requests for
multimodal and multiarea measures through other MAP-21 freight
requirements such as freight planning and the development of a Freight
Conditions and Performance Report (see MAP-21, Section 1115). An
additional factor in FHWA's assessment was the varying practices for
FPM among stakeholders, including State DOTs and MPOs, resulting in a
lack of national consistency on data and measurement. After considering
the ongoing research in this area and stakeholder support for FHWA's
FPM efforts, FHWA believes that its proposed use of a nationally
consistent data set is the most consistent, efficient, and reliable
means of understanding Interstate freight movement at the local, State,
and national levels.
Assessment of Proposed Measures for Subpart F (Freight Movement)
The FHWA identified two proposed measures: (1) Percent of
Interstate System mileage meeting the goal for reliability; and (2)
percent of Interstate System mileage considered uncongested (by speed).
The two measures proposed by FHWA were evaluated, based on existing
state-of-practice, using the assessment process described in Section
V.A of this section. Table 6 includes a summary of this assessment.
Table 6--Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures Relating to
Freight Movement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Percent of
interstate system interstate system
Assessment factor mileage meeting mileage
goal for uncongested (by
reliability speed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A1) Is the measure focused on G G
comprehensive performance
outcomes?......................
(A2) Has the measure been G G
developed in partnership with
key stakeholders?..............
(A3) Is the measure maintainable G G
to accommodate changes?........
(A4) Can the measure is used to G G
support investment decisions,
policy making and target
establishment?.................
(A5) Can the measures be used to G G
analyze performance trends?....
(A6) Has the feasibility and G G
practicality to collect, store,
and report data in support of
the measures been considered?..
(B1) Timeliness................. G G
(B2) Consistency................ G G
(B3) Completeness............... Y Y
(B4) Accuracy................... G G
(B5) Accessibility.............. G G
(B6) Data Integration........... G G
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.
The measures proposed by FHWA were considered against the criteria
presented in Table 6. For all of the assessment factors except
completeness, FHWA ranked these measures as ``green.'' The FHWA
considered the measures against all of the criteria and weighed public
and private stakeholder input along with FHWA's experience in applying
the measures. These measures were determined to be the two measures
that most appropriately met all of the assessment factors and provide a
comprehensive assessment of performance for freight so that public and
private decisionmakers can identify policy and operational improvements
for goods movement. The FHWA considered the measures to be ``yellow''
for completeness only because they are proposed to rely on data from
the NPMRDS, which has limited missing data that could impact the
ability to conduct a complete assessment of
[[Page 23829]]
freight movement on the Interstate. While a robust data set, the NPMRDS
does exhibit limitations, especially with missing travel time data when
no probe passes a location in a 5-minute period (referred to as 5-
minute bins). For the freight data, the NPMRDS uses a sample of
approximately 600,000 trucks. The probes that are used to derive travel
times in the NPMRDS generally provide national coverage. However, there
are some areas of the Nation where there are fewer trucks or no truck
activity reported. When this occurs, these bins would not be reported
in the NPMRDS, and are missing from the dataset. The FHWA's internal
assessment has demonstrated that, even with the missing data, the
measures could still be calculated because the measures are based on
annual averages. There are not enough missing 5 minute bins to make
calculating the measure impossible. The FHWA recognizes the need to
improve the completeness of the data and continues to work to improve
this data set and include more trucks. It is expected that the truck
sample will grow exponentially in coming years and over time the
addition of more probe sources will reduce missing travel times.
C. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart H--On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
The following section includes an overview of the factors FHWA
considered in the selection of a proposed measure for the assessment of
on-road mobile source emissions as required to administer the CMAQ
program under 23 U.S.C. 149. (The previous section discusses proposed
measures for Traffic Congestion to carry out the CMAQ program.) The
FHWA wants the measure established through this rulemaking to:
Meet CMAQ program performance requirements in 23 U.S.C.
149 and 150.
Be mindful of existing emissions reduction reporting
practices and data sets, thereby minimizing any additional burden on
State DOTs and MPOs.
Apply to CMAQ-funded projects instead of focusing on one
project type (e.g., highways or transit).
Apply to CMAQ-funded projects only in areas designated as
nonattainment and maintenance for pollutants applicable to the CMAQ
program (ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate
matter (PM)) versus all areas.
The FHWA received viewpoints on suggested measures as discussed
above in Section III, Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and
Outreach. In addition, FHWA considered measures in use today to report
on-road mobile source emissions reduction estimates. After
consideration, FHWA identified four possible measures for preliminary
consideration:
(1) Emission Reductions by Pollutant--A measure of the estimated
emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects within a nonattainment or
maintenance area. The emissions reductions would be calculated by
pollutant and their applicable precursors.
(2) Estimated Emission Reductions of CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative
to Total Emission Reductions of the Nonattainment or Maintenance Area--
A measure that expresses the emissions reduced by CMAQ projects as a
percentage of total emission reductions. Total emission reductions are
calculated by taking the difference between the estimated emissions of
all transportation projects and the total allowable emissions (i.e.,
emissions budget) within the nonattainment or maintenance area.
(3) Estimated Emissions Reduction of CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative
to Total Emissions of the Nonattainment or Maintenance Area--A measure
that expresses the emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects as a
percentage of total emissions in the nonattainment or maintenance area.
Total emissions would be obtained from the regional emissions estimates
prepared for the conformity determination for the nonattainment or
maintenance area.
(4) Cost Effectiveness of CMAQ Projects--A measure that compares
the total amount of CMAQ funds spent in an area to estimated emissions
reduced by those CMAQ projects.
Assessment of Potential Measures for Subpart H
The FHWA assessed the four potential on-road mobile source emission
measures based on state-of-practice among States and MPOs and using the
12 criteria described in Section V.A. Table 7 below summarizes the
results of this assessment.
Table 7--Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures for On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated emission
reductions of CMAQ- Estimated emission
Emission funded projects reductions of CMAQ-
Assessment factor reductions by relative to total funded projects Cost effectiveness
pollutant emission relative to total of CMAQ projects
reductions of the emissions of area
area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A1) Is the measure focused on G G G G
comprehensive performance
outcomes?......................
(A2) Has the measure been G R R R
developed in partnership with
key stakeholders?..............
(A3) Is the measure maintainable G G G G
to accommodate changes?........
(A4) Can the measure be used to G Y Y G
support investment decisions,
policy making and target
establishment?.................
(A5) Can the measures be used to G G G G
analyze performance trends?....
(A6) Has the feasibility and G Y Y Y
practicality to collect, store,
and report data in support of
the measures been considered?..
(B1) Timeliness................. Y Y Y Y
(B2) Consistency................ Y Y Y R
(B3) Completeness............... Y Y Y R
(B4) Accuracy................... G Y Y R
(B5) Accessibility.............. G G G R
(B6) Data Integration........... Y R R R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.
[[Page 23830]]
Based on the assessment summarized above and the additional
principles described in this section, FHWA concluded that the last
three measures were not suitable because they did not provide useful
information for establishing targets, were not developed with key
stakeholders, or in the case of cost effectiveness, data was not
readily available. The measure that best fits the criteria established
by FHWA was emissions reduction by pollutant. With respect to this
measure, FHWA considered the following:
Criterion B1--Measure recognizes that emissions are
estimated, not measured, based on the expected benefit from building
the project. Collecting emissions data on a project-by-project basis
through vehicle probing or another means would be cost prohibitive and
would take years to collect useable data.
Criteria B2 and B3--Measure recognizes that no consistent
method is being used across the country to estimate CMAQ project
emission reductions and that although quantitative emissions analyses
of air quality impacts is expected for almost all project types,
qualitative assessments are acceptable when it is not possible to
accurately quantify emissions reductions (i.e., public education,
marketing and other outreach efforts). The FHWA is conducting a number
of research studies to develop tools to assist with consistency and
completeness of emissions estimates, for those project types where it
is possible to quantify emissions, but these tools will take time for
FHWA to develop.
Criterion B6--While the CMAQ Public Access System does
include estimated emissions reductions by pollutant by project for each
MPO and State that receives CMAQ funds, this database is not integrated
with performance-related data such as a spatial component. Work is
underway to improve and increase the functionalities of the database to
support the performance planning activities.
The FHWA is proposing this approach to define the on-road mobile
source emissions measure in a manner that is consistent with and
reflects the various methods used today by State DOTs and MPOs to
calculate on-road mobile source emissions and is consistent with the
information received from stakeholders. The specifics of this proposal
are described in the Section-by-Section portion of this proposed rule.
D. Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure
The FHWA is seeking comment on whether and how to establish a
CO2 emissions measure in the final rule. The FHWA received
input through stakeholder listening sessions and various letters
(available in the docket) suggesting that DOT add a GHG emissions
measure because GHGs are correlated with fuel use and air toxins. One
group of commenters specifically asked for a carbon emissions measure
for mobile sources. However, it is clear that reducing CO2
emissions is critical and timely. On-road sources account for over 80
percent of U.S. transportation sector GHGs. In an historic accord in
Paris, the U.S. and over 190 other countries agreed to reduce GHG
emissions, with the goal of limiting global temperature rise to less
than 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial levels by 2050.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
human activity is changing the earth's climate by causing the buildup
of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions through the burning of fossil
fuels and other human processes.\43\ Transportation sources globally
have been a rapidly increasing source of GHGs. Since 1970, GHGs
produced by the transportation sector have more than doubled,
increasing at a faster rate than any other end-use sector. The GHGs
from total global on-road sources have more than tripled, accounting
these sources account for more than 80 percent of the increase in total
global transportation GHG emissions.\44\ In the U.S., GHG emissions
from on-road sources represent approximately 23 percent of economy-wide
GHGs, but have accounted for more than two-thirds of the net increase
in total U.S. GHGs since 1990,\45\ during which time VMT also increased
by more than 30 percent.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The IPCC Document: IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers.
In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://mitigation2014.org/report/summary-for-policy-makers.
\44\ Sims, et al. 2014: Transport: In Climate Change 2014,
Mitigation of Climate Change. https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. p. 605. https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter8.pdf.
\45\ This is the first year of official U.S. data.
\46\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2015. Washington, DC.
Tables 2-1 and 2-13. Federal Highway Administration, 2013 Status of
the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions &
Performance. Washington, DC. Exhibit 1-3. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-Main-Text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well-established scientific record has linked increasing GHG
concentrations with a range of climatic effects, including increased
global temperatures that have the potential to result in dangerous and
potentially irreversible changes in climate and weather. In December
2015, the Conference of Parties nations recognized the need for deep
reductions in global emissions to hold the increase in global average
temperature to well below 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial levels, and are
pursuing efforts to limit temperature increases to 1.5 [deg]C. To that
end, the accord calls on developed countries to take a leadership role
in identifying economy-wide absolute emissions reduction targets and
implementing mitigation programs. Also, as part of a 2014 bilateral
agreement with China, the U.S. pledged to reduce GHG emissions to 26-28
percent below 2005 levels by 2025, with this emissions reduction
pathway intended to support economy-wide reductions of 80 percent or
more by 2050.
The FHWA recognizes that achieving U.S. climate goals will likely
require significant GHG reductions from on-road transportation sources.
To support the consideration of GHG emissions in transportation
planning and decisionmaking, FHWA has developed a variety of resources
to quantify on-road GHG emissions, evaluate GHG reduction strategies,
and integrate climate analysis into the transportation planning
process. The FHWA already encourages transportation agencies to
consider GHG emissions as part of their performance-based
decisionmaking, and has developed a handbook to assist State DOTs and
MPOs interested in addressing GHG emissions through performance-based
planning and programming.\47\ The FHWA has developed tools to help
State and local transportation agencies address GHG emissions
associated with their systems. These include the Energy and Emissions
Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT),\48\ a model that evaluates the
impacts of CO2 reduction policies for surface
transportation, and the Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE),\49\ a
tool that specifically evaluates CO2 associated with the
construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. The FHWA
is also currently conducting a number of pilots
[[Page 23831]]
to analyze the potential GHG emission reductions associated with
various transportation-related mitigation strategies.\50\ Even with
these efforts, FHWA recognizes that more will be needed to meet the
U.S. climate goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ A Performance-Based Approach to Addressing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions through Transportation Planning, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/publications_and_tools/ghg_planning/ghg_planning.pdf.
\48\ The Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool
(EERPAT), available at https://www.planning.dot.gov/FHWA_tool/.
\49\ The Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE), available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/publications_and_tools/carbon_estimator/.
\50\ FHWA's Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Demonstration
projects are described at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/ongoing_and_current_research/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA is considering how GHG emissions could be estimated and
used to inform planning and programming decisions to reduce long term
emissions. If FHWA were to establish a measure, we believe that, in the
context of this rulemaking, GHG emissions would be best measured as the
total annual tons of CO2 from all on-road mobile sources.
The FHWA is seeking comment on the potential establishment and
effectiveness of a measure as a planning, programming, and reporting
tool, and how we could address the following considerations in the
design of a measure:
Should the measure address all on-road mobile sources or
should it focus only on a particular vehicle type (e.g., light-duty
vehicles)?
Should the measure be normalized by changes in population,
economic activity, or other factors (e.g., per capita or per unit of
gross state product)?
Should the measure be limited to emissions coming from the
tailpipe, or should it consider emissions generated upstream in the
life cycle of the vehicle operations (e.g., emissions from the
extraction/refining of petroleum products and the emissions from power
plants to provide power for electric vehicles)?
Should the measure include non-road sources, such as
construction and maintenance activities associated with Title 23
projects?
Should CO2 emissions performance be estimated
based on gasoline and diesel fuel sales, system use (vehicle miles
traveled), or other surrogates?
Due to the nature of CO2 emissions (e.g.,
geographic scope and cumulative effects) and their relationship to
climate change effects across all parts of the country, should the
measure apply to all States and MPOs? Is there any criteria that would
limit the applicability to only a portion of the States or MPOs?
Would a performance measure on CO2 emissions
help to improve transparency and to realign incentives such that State
DOTs and MPOs are better positioned to meet national climate change
goals?
The target establishment framework proposed in this
rulemaking requires that States and MPOs would establish 2 and 4 year
targets that lead to longer term performance expectations documented in
longer range plans. Is this framework appropriate for a CO2
emissions measure? If not, what would be a more appropriate framework?
Should short term targets be a reflection of improvements
from a baseline (e.g., percent reduction in CO2 emissions)
or an absolute value?
What data sources and tools are readily available or are
needed to track and report CO2 emissions from on-road
sources?
What tools are needed to help transportation agencies
project future emissions and establish targets for a CO2
emission measure?
How long would it take for transportation agencies to
implement such a measure?
Additionally, the FHWA requests data about the potential
agency implementation costs and public benefits associated with
establishing a CO2 emissions measure.
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and
Proposed Performance Measures Sections
This section discusses how the proposed regulations address MAP-
21's charge to establish performance measures for State DOTs and MPOs
to use to assess: The performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP; freight
movement on the Interstate System; and traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
program. Subpart A discusses common aspects of the proposed rulemaking
related to definitions, reporting, significant progress determination,
and target establishment. Discussion of the performance measures is
organized into four subparts covering three performance areas,
including: Subpart E, which discusses proposed measures to assess
performance of the NHS; Subpart F, which discusses the proposed measure
to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and Subparts G and
H, which discuss the proposed CMAQ measures to assess traffic
congestion and on-road mobile source emissions, respectively.
Subparts E, F, G, and H of the proposed regulations provide the
requirements for the system performance, traffic congestion, freight
movement, and on-road mobile source emissions measures, including any
required methodologies for data collection, data requirements, and
processes for calculating the measures. The Section-by-Section
discussion also addresses procedural discrepancies in data collection
and reporting, and attempts to align them using the latest research and
state-of-the-practice experience to provide consistent national
performance measures.
A. Common Issues Across Subparts E, F, and G
The FHWA established and followed certain standards in the
development of the requirements proposed in Subparts E, F, and G. For
example, for the proposed rules associated with assessing the
performance of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate, and traffic
congestion, FHWA attempted to use a consistent framework and structure,
to the extent possible, because the performance measures associated
with these subparts are largely based on vehicle travel times and
speeds. The following sub-sections summarize the overarching framework
and guiding principles used across these subparts. Information related
to the development of the requirements proposed in Subpart H is
discussed separately.
Measures That Focus on Outcomes for Assessing the Performance of the
NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate, and Traffic Congestion
Transportation performance outcomes can be impacted through the use
of a wide range of strategies that support the transportation
priorities and policies of local areas. In its decisionmaking to
develop proposed measures, FHWA was careful to avoid any measures that
would impact the ability of a State DOT or MPO to make decisions that
work for the local area. For this reason, FHWA focused only on measures
that track transportation performance where outcomes could tell a
national story.
The proposed measures in Subparts E, F, and G of this rulemaking
focus primarily on the consistency and efficiency of travel times on
our Nation's highways. Improvements to this outcome could be the result
of a wide range of strategies such as those that would improve the
operations of highway facilities and those that would decrease the
demand on highway facilities by providing alternative transportation
choices. The FHWA believes that the selection of these strategies is a
local decision and should not be influenced directly by the measure
itself. For this reason, FHWA elected not to propose measures that
would directly measure the implementation of strategies to improve
system operations (i.e., percent modal use, or number of managed
lanes).
[[Page 23832]]
Measures That Use Travel Time Data for Assessing the Performance of the
NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate, and Traffic Congestion
This rulemaking's proposals for subparts E, F, and G (performance
of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate, and traffic congestion-
related measures) are based on travel times or travel speeds of highway
users. Travel times and speeds are being proposed as the basis for
these measures as FHWA feels that this information accurately reflects
highway operational performance and that the data can be captured
across the full NHS in an accessible national data source in a timely
and reliable manner. The FHWA is proposing the use of the new NPMRDS as
the data source to calculate the metrics for the seven travel time/
speed based measures to ensure consistency and coverage at a national
level. This data set provides travel times representative of all
traffic (freight and passenger vehicles) traveling on the NHS and
captures this information every 5 minutes throughout every day of the
year. The FHWA expects to continue to provide this data set to State
DOTs and MPOs as long as there is a need at a national level for this
information. The proposed regulations allow State DOTs to use
alternative data sources provided the data set is considered at least
equivalent in quality, coverage, and timeliness to the NPMRDS and is
approved by FHWA. States DOTs and MPOs have the option to relate the
travel time data provided in the NPMRDS to their relevant location
referencing system (typically used for transportation planning).
As proposed in section 490.103, States and MPOs shall cooperatively
develop and share information related to transportation systems
performance data. The transportation systems performance data would
include the travel time data set, the selected reporting segments, and
the desired peak period travel time required for use under subparts E,
F, and G.
When the State DOT selects the travel time data set, it must
coordinate with the MPOs in the State that are subject to creating the
metrics and measures in subparts E, F, and G. When the State selects
the reporting segments and the Desired Peak Period Travel Time for a
particular reporting segment, State DOTs must coordinate with the
applicable MPOs that contain the reporting segment within their
metropolitan planning area boundary. States and MPOs must use the same
data (the travel time data set, the reporting segments, and the desired
peak period travel time for a reporting segment) for the purposes of
calculating the metrics and measures.
Dealing With Missing Data When Assessing the Performance of the NHS,
Freight Movement on the Interstate, and Traffic Congestion
Travel times and speeds of highway users may be captured from a
variety of sources such as mobile phones, vehicle transponders,
portable navigation devices, roadway sensors, and cameras. It is
possible that during the day, during specific 5-minute intervals,
travel time or speed data cannot be captured. Five-minute bins without
data would not be reported in the NPMRDS, and would therefore be
considered missing. This can occur due to one of the following reasons:
Reason 1--No users traveled on the roadway during the 5-
minute interval, or
Reason 2--Travel occurred on the roadway but no sources of
data were recognized (i.e., mobile phones, vehicle transponders,
portable navigation devices), or
Reason 3--Equipment failure (e.g., sensor malfunction,
communication system failure).
The FHWA believes that, although missing data is possible due to
Reason 2 listed above, the likelihood of this condition occurring will
decrease over time as data capture technologies advance and as a
greater percentage of highway users carry equipment that allows them to
become viable travel time data sources. The FHWA also believes that it
is valid to assume that travel occurring under the conditions that
would result in missing data for Reason 1 would be consistent with free
flow travel speeds. Lastly, for Reason 3, FHWA realizes that there are
times when equipment used to capture data may fail because of usage,
damage, or other causes. The FHWA believes this will be a more
infrequent cause of missing information than Reason 1. For these
reasons, FHWA is proposing in this rulemaking that missing travel time
data be assumed to be occurring due to Reason 1 for purposes of the
reliability measures (both freight and system performance) on the
Interstate and, consequently, assumes travel times that are consistent
with posted speed limits when data is missing.
The FHWA found, after analysis of missing data in the NPMRDS (a
white-paper on missing data/outliers' impact on proposed measures is
included in the docket), that there was currently sufficient data for
the Interstate so States and MPOs could establish reasonable targets.
However, the analysis also demonstrated that at the current time there
is enough missing data for the non-Interstate NHS that it could impact
the ability of States and MPOs to establish targets. Accordingly, FHWA
is proposing that the non-Interstate reliability measures would be
phased in, giving the States and MPOs an opportunity to understand the
impact of missing data on target establishment and time for the NPMRDS
to become more complete.
Regarding the peak hour travel time measures, which include both
the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS, the measures rely on hourly
average travel times. Missing data does not have the same impact on
target establishment for the peak hour travel time measures as it does
for the reliability measures. So, FHWA proposes no replacement of
missing data for either of the peak hour measures. However, in its
analysis of the data, FHWA noted that outliers could have an effect on
these measures, so FHWA is proposing that States and MPOs remove
extreme outliers (i.e., those travel times at speeds less than 2 mph
and over 100 mph) from the data set before calculating the peak hour
measures. These outliers are further discussed in a white-paper on
missing data/outliers' impact on proposed measures, which is included
in the docket.
Missing data potentially could have an impact on target
establishment for the traffic congestion measure (Annual Hours of
Excessive Delay Per Capita). Because this is a delay measure that sums
all the delay identified on segments, missing data could mean missing
some delay in calculating the measure. This could make it difficult for
States and MPOs to achieve targets due to more complete data may be
available in the future. The FHWA is proposing that this measure would
be phased in, to allow States and MPOs time to understand the impact of
missing data on establishing targets, and for the NPMRDS to become more
complete.
As mentioned, a white-paper on missing data/outliers' impact on
proposed measures is included in the docket. This paper includes
information on options such as applying a path-type processing that
uses the actual observations of the vehicles on segments adjacent to
those segments with missing data and that traversed the segment with
missing data to fill in the missing travel times, and the impacts of
trimming the data at 2 and 100 mph. The FHWA is seeking comment on this
process and other processes that FHWA should consider to improve
missing data and outlier impacts.
[[Page 23833]]
Phasing in Target Establishment Requirements for Less Mature Measures
The FHWA is proposing a phased-in approach to the establishment of
targets for both the non-Interstate NHS reliability measure and the
traffic congestion (excessive delay) measure. The phased-in approach
would provide 2 years for data coverage on non-Interstate NHS roadways
to be more complete and for States and MPOs to understand the impacts
of missing data on establishing targets. The completeness of travel
time data in the NPMRDS is greater for the Interstate as compared to
other NHS roadways. The FHWA believes that the completeness of data in
the NPMRDS will improve over time as sources become more prevalent
(missing data is discussed in a white paper provided on the docket).
The FHWA also believes that State DOTs have more experience in
collecting and reporting reliability and congestion performance on the
Interstate as compared to other NHS roadways and, as a result, are more
readily capable to establish targets for the Interstate System.
However, missing data for the non-Interstate NHS may lead to
uncertainty for State DOTs and MPOs as they establish targets. Giving
time to State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for the non-Interstate
NHS may help them learn how to manage that uncertainty. For these
reasons, FHWA believes that a phased approach to target establishment
is appropriate for those measures that are derived from data on the
non-Interstate NHS.
Travel Time Reliability for Assessing the Performance of the NHS and
Freight Movement on the Interstate
The FHWA heard consistently from stakeholders that managing the
travel time reliability of the highway network is important and should
be considered as part of this rulemaking. For this reason, as part of
this rulemaking FHWA is proposing the establishment of travel time
reliability measures. In general, the proposed reliability measures
address: (1) The reliability of the entire NHS for all travelers; and
(2) the reliability of the Interstate System for longer haul freight
movements. Reliability focuses on variability in travel times, and the
travel time measures in this rulemaking focus on identifying portions
of the NHS and Interstate (for freight) that have high levels of
unreliable travel. An example of unreliable travel is a trip that takes
30 minutes on a typical day but could take over 45 minutes on a random
day. This extra trip time might be due to a road or lane closure, a
traffic accident, or bad weather. The FHWA intends that the measure for
reliability of the NHS for all travelers would be used to identify the
areas of the transportation network where there are the greatest
impacts on travel when non-recurring incidents occur. Non-recurring
incidents include temporary disruptions, such as incidents ranging from
a flat tire to an overturned hazardous material truck, work zones,
weather, and special events. In contrast, the proposed measure for
freight travel time reliability is based only on freight travel and
considers the longest travel times experienced as compared to travel
times more likely during normal travel time conditions throughout all
hours of the day. The index provided by this reliability measure is an
important piece of information for shippers and suppliers so they can
plan for a higher likelihood of on-time arrivals of deliveries. These
reliability measures are discussed in more detail in the section-by-
section portion of this NPRM.
Travel Time Delay for Assessing Freight Movement on the Interstate and
Traffic Congestion
The FHWA is proposing two measures to assess traffic congestion:
(1) One measure to represent congestion impacting freight movement,
which is proposed in Subpart F; and (2) One measure to represent
overall traffic congestion, which is proposed in Subpart G. Although
both proposed measures use delay as the basis for determining
congestion, the two differ in design and intended purpose.
The first proposed congestion measure related to freight movement
is focused on delay and is intended to be used to assess delay that
could occur on the Interstate System. This proposed delay measure
represents the percentage of the Interstate System that is uncongested
as defined by a speed threshold of 50 mph. The FHWA aimed to understand
the point of inflection to consider speeds and viewed 50 mph as
appropriate for this measure. This is due in part because trucks often
have speed governors installed on them so that they cannot travel much
faster than 55 mph. Additionally, freight stakeholders commented that
50 mph or greater is where they would like to be in terms of average
speed. The FHWA is seeking comment on this threshold.
The second proposed measure, related to traffic congestion and
focused on Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita, is intended to
be used to assess delays that FHWA believes would be considered
excessive by users of the NHS roadways in large urbanized areas. This
proposed delay measure is an indication of the additional time spent by
all users of the system (quantified by the total estimated vehicles
using the system) when traveling at speeds considerably lower than
typical speed limits. In addition, this measure is proposed to be only
applicable to the largest urbanized areas in the country: The portion
of those that exceed a population of 1 million.
Reliable Performance for the NHS and Freight Movement on the Interstate
Three of the eight measures proposed in this rulemaking focus on
measuring reliable performance: (1) Section 490.507(a)(1) Percent of
the Interstate System providing for reliable travel times, (2) Section
490.507(a)(2) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for reliable
travel times, and (3) Section 490.607(a) Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage providing reliable truck travel times. The discussions
provided in this section provide an explanation of how ``reliable''
performance is defined, understanding that the meaning of this term can
be very subjective, especially when discussing outcomes that are
derived from travel time and speed data. Each of the measures that
focus on ``reliable'' performance includes a clearly defined
calculation to remove any subjectivity in the meaning of the term. As
discussed above, FHWA is proposing measures that, although they include
similar methods of calculation, would be used to assess different
aspects of highway performance. In general, reliable performance for
the five proposed measures can be grouped as follows:
Subpart E--Travel time reliability as being reliable for
highway users;
Subpart F--Truck travel time reliability as being reliable
for shippers and suppliers.
Additional discussion is provided in each subpart to explain the
method used to identify the percentage of the transportation network
that would be considered ``reliable'' to these different users and
stakeholders.
Impact of Traffic Volumes on Travel Time Derived Measures
The measures being proposed in this rulemaking that are derived
from travel times reflect: System reliability, peak hour travel times,
truck congestion, and excessive delay. With the exception of excessive
delay, FHWA did not factor the volume of traffic in the calculations
for these proposed measures. Consequently, these measures do not
directly capture the weight of traffic volumes in the results. Rather,
the measures are calculated based on the
[[Page 23834]]
length of roadway segments. Table 8 below provides a very simple
example to illustrate the impact of traffic volume on the measure
calculation:
Table 8--An Example To Illustrate the Impact of Traffic Volume on the Measure Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual traffic
volume Length reliable Vehicle miles Vehicle miles
Road segment length (direction-miles) (thousands of Reliable? (direction- reliable traveled
vehicles) miles) (thousands) (thousands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................................. 2,700 Yes............................. 5 13,500 13,500
1............................................. 73,000 No.............................. 0 0 73,000
3............................................. 5,000 Yes............................. 3 15,000 15,000
6............................................. 1,700 No.............................. 0 0 10,200
2............................................. 50,000 Yes............................. 2 100,000 0
2............................................. 18,000 Yes............................. 2 36,000 36,000
1............................................. 75,000 Yes............................. 1 75,000 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = 20................................ ................ ................................ Total = 13 Total = 239,500 Total = 322,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this simplified example using a mileage based approach 13
direction-miles, or 65.0 percent (13/20), of the network would be
considered ``reliable,'' and using a volume weighted approach 239,500
VMT, or 74.2 percent (239,500/322,700), of the VMT would have been
``reliable.'' This example illustrates the differences in these two
approaches.
Except for the excessive delay measure, FHWA elected to use a
mileage based approach and not to weigh the measures by volume due to
the absence of data regarding actual traffic volumes particularly for
the level of roadway coverage and granularity needed (entire NHS and 5-
minute temporal granularity). The system reliability, peak hour travel
times, and truck congestion measures are intended to evaluate system
performance. This objective can be achieved by analyzing performance on
roadway segments and then indicating, via roadway segment length,
whether or not a segment is performing to a satisfactory level (based
on thresholds defined in this rule). If actual, observed volumes were
available at these roadway segment levels every 5 minutes as well, an
optional approach would be to identify the amount of VMT that met the
measure thresholds, as demonstrated in Table 8. This would require
actual volume counts every 5 minutes for every NHS road segment, data
which do not currently exist. The FHWA believes it would be
inappropriate to introduce estimated data for these measures, which are
otherwise focused on actual data. As a result, FHWA is proposing the
use of roadway segment length as the means for reporting the metrics
and measures.
In addition, FHWA believes performance expressed as the percent of
the system mileage is more easily understood by the public as compared
to measures that would be expressed as the percentage of vehicle miles
traveled. The FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to consider
strategies that would provide the greatest impact to improving the
performance of overall traffic volumes by focusing on roadway segments
that carry higher volumes of traffic.
The Total Excessive Delay measure, on the other hand, needs to be
weighted by something to be meaningful, as it is basically a sum of all
the excessive travel times on the NHS in an urban area. If excessive
delay during a 5 minute period (say 5 seconds) were simply totaled for
every 5 minute period and roadway segment, then the excessive delay
travel time on a roadway segment with one car would be equivalent to a
roadway segment with 110 cars. Such an analysis would not capture the
scope of the delay (how many vehicles are actually experiencing that 5
second excessive travel time). Hourly volumes (of vehicles) are a
typical means of weighting delay measures. Therefore, for the Total
Excessive Delay measure, FHWA requires development of hourly volumes
based on actual vehicle counts or estimated from AADT (an estimated
number from limited vehicle count data). State DOTs and MPOs can
develop hourly volume estimates with AADT information provided to HPMS
every year for their NHS roadways. In this case, using the best-
available data, even if it is estimated, is preferable than not using
such data, because DOTs and MPOs would have difficulty setting targets
for this measure without weighting it by the number of vehicles
experiencing the delay.
The FHWA is seeking comments on this approach and encourages
comments suggesting alternative methods that may more effectively
capture the impact of performance changes on differing levels of system
use.
Focus on Large Urbanized Areas for Assessing the Performance of the NHS
and Traffic Congestion
In addition to travel time reliability, FHWA is proposing travel
time or speed based measures to assess and manage the worst areas of
delay or congestion in large urbanized areas. The FHWA felt that this
type of measure was most applicable to urbanized areas where
populations are greater than 1 million, as these areas are where delay
is most likely to occur, and where State DOTs and MPOs likely have a
greater level of capability, experience, and need to manage the traffic
operations. As proposed, three of the seven travel time or speed based
measures are limited to these large urbanized areas. They are: (1)
Section 490.507(b)(1) Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour
travel times meet expectations, (2) section 490.507(b)(2) Percent of
the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times meet expectations,
and (3) section 490.707 Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita. The
peak hour travel time measures capture congestion only during peak
periods of use (commute-related congestion) and the annual hours of
excessive delay per capita captures congestion throughout the day
(overall delay).
The FHWA is proposing that only urbanized areas over 1 million in
population would be subject to these measures because of the additional
performance-reporting requirements that these areas, which are also
nonattainment or maintenance areas, have to complete for the CMAQ-
related measures (23 U.S.C. 149(l)) including Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay per Capita. By requiring MPOs in these areas to do additional
CMAQ performance reporting, Congress placed a special emphasis on these
larger urbanized areas. The FHWA considered this emphasis when it
evaluated
[[Page 23835]]
whether all areas or only a smaller subset of areas within a State
should be subject to the traffic congestion measure.
In FHWA's experience, areas over 1 million in population are
generally more complex from a transportation perspective. Those areas
have more population, resulting in more trips. These areas also tend to
have a variety of transportation options available, including highways,
airports, commercial rail. In more concentrated urban environments, the
areas may also be more constrained in terms of where any new facilities
to accommodate demand can be located. There also may be higher costs
for right-of-way acquisition. For all these reasons, FHWA's experience
is that transportation planning in these larger urban areas is
generally more complex than in areas less than 1 million in population,
resulting in a greater need to manage the transportation system and,
specifically, traffic operations. In addition, these larger areas do
receive more Surface Transportation Program suballocated funding than
smaller areas (see 23 U.S.C. 133(d)). For all these reasons, FHWA
believe it is important that these areas look more closely peak hour
travel times and excessive delay as they are managing traffic
operations.
The FHWA also considered whether the measure should apply: To
another subset of areas within the State, such as areas where MPOs
serve a TMA \51\ as these areas may have more experience with the
congestion management process provided for in 23 U.S.C. 134(k); to all
urbanized areas within the State; or to the entire State. Because of
the additional burden involved in measuring peak hour and traffic
congestion, FHWA is proposing that only urbanized areas where
populations are greater than 1 million in population would be subject
to these measures. The FHWA is requesting comment on: Whether a
population threshold should be used for determining the measure
applicability; and if so then whether 1 million is the appropriate
threshold, or whether another threshold (e.g., population over 200,000)
would be more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ A transportation management area (TMA) is defined in
Federal statute (23 U.S.C. 134(k)) as an urbanized area having a
population of over 200,000, or otherwise designated by the Governor
and the MPO and officially designated by the FHWA and FTA
Administrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the United States there are 42 urbanized areas that have
populations greater than 1 million based on the most recent U.S. Census
(2010). These 42 areas are included within or intersect with 35 State
and 67 metropolitan planning area boundaries. The FHWA is proposing
that for these measures (traffic congestion measure and the peak hour
travel time measures for system performance), one single target be
established for the roadways within the urbanized area, including those
areas that intersect with multiple State and metropolitan planning area
boundaries. This single target would need to be agreed upon and shared
by all of the entities in the urbanized area. For example, one target
would be established for the Philadelphia urbanized area that would be
shared by the four States and four MPOs that collectively make
transportation investment decisions for the area. The FHWA recognizes
that for these large areas, performance is not constrained by political
boundaries and that strategies to address performance should be
addressed regionally and across political boundaries. For these
measures, strategies taken in one political jurisdiction can have
direct and indirect impacts when measuring performance in another
proximate political jurisdiction. The FHWA felt that this approach
would increase the potential for coordination across jurisdictions to
manage the overall performance of the region.
Starting With Highways and Expanding to Other Surface Transportation
Modes for Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA heard from many stakeholders that the traffic congestion
measure should consider the mobility of travelers using all modes of
surface transportation such as highways, commuter railways, bikeways,
and walkways. The measure proposed in this rulemaking to assess traffic
congestion does not fully address this as it is focused only on vehicle
delays on NHS highways. The FHWA elected to propose a vehicle delay
measure at this time due to the limited availability of reliable,
accurate, comprehensive, and timely data for the other surface
transportation modes. This type of data would be needed to calculate a
more comprehensive delay measure that considers all travelers and all
surface modes of transportation. However, FHWA would like to move to a
measure in the future that would consider the mobility of travelers
using all surface modes of transportation and is seeking comment on
feasible approaches that can be taken to move toward the development of
such as measure. The CMAQ traffic congestion delay measure proposed in
this rulemaking does consider the travel times of vehicles and
passengers to the extent they are captured as sources during data
collection. In addition, the CMAQ traffic congestion delay measure is
expressed as a rate by dividing the total vehicle delay in the area by
the total population of the area, which would potentially reflect
successful implementation of strategies to provide transportation
choices other than highway travel. This proposal is discussed in more
detail in the Section-by-Section portion of this preamble for Subpart
G.
Improving the Operations of the Existing Transportation Network by
Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA heard from many stakeholders that the traffic congestion
measure should directly capture the impact of transportation network
connectivity issues and land use decisionmaking to improve public
accessibility to essential services. The FHWA believes that the delay
measure proposed in this rulemaking to assess traffic congestion will
reflect these types of strategies to the degree they minimize impacts
on highway traffic operations. However, FHWA is not proposing a measure
to directly assess transportation connectivity or accessibility. The
focus of the proposed measure is to improve the operations of the
existing network by reducing congestion, and does not assess if the
network or use of land, as designed, is providing for the most
efficient connections to adequately move people and goods from their
origin to their destination. The FHWA believes that the scope of 23
U.S.C. 150(c) relates to establishing measures for State DOTs and MPOs
to use to assess traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out
section 149, which is a component of the Federal-aid highway program.
Improving overall network connectivity is a priority for DOT and FHWA.
Outside of this rulemaking, FHWA, in cooperation with FTA, is actively
working with transportation operating agencies and planning
organizations on efforts to understand and advance best practices in
assessing and managing transportation network connectivity to improve
public accessibility to essential services.
B. Issues Relating to Subpart H
In the development of the requirements in Subpart H, FHWA attempted
to use a similar approach as in other subparts. Subpart H is focused on
emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects in a nonattainment or
maintenance area. A summary of the framework used is discussed below.
[[Page 23836]]
Use of Existing/Available Dataset for Assessing On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
This rulemaking proposes to use data included in the existing CMAQ
Public Access System to calculate the metric for the on-road mobile
source emissions measure. The CMAQ Public Access System is a database
of CMAQ project information reported by each State DOT as part of the
CMAQ annual reports to FHWA. The Public Access System contains all
CMAQ-funded projects by Federal fiscal year and their estimated
emissions reductions by pollutant and precursor applicable to the CMAQ
program. For purposes of calculating the on-road mobile source
emissions measure, use of this existing data set provides a national
data source for emissions reductions estimates and will not require a
new data collection process.
Dealing With Missing Data When Assessing On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
While quantitative emissions reductions are expected for most
projects entered into the CMAQ Public Access System, it is not required
nor has it been possible for some pollutants, especially PM emissions.
Project sponsors have always had the option to provide a qualitative
assessment based on a reasoned and logical evaluation of a project or
programs emission benefits. Also, prior to December 20, 2012, EPA's
emission model had significant limitations that made it unsatisfactory
for use in microscale analyses of PM2.5 and PM10
emissions. Once MOVES was released on December 20, 2010, areas had a 2
year grace period before the model was required to be used for CAA
purposes and many areas also used that grace period to transition to
using the model for estimating emissions for CMAQ projects. Therefore,
the CMAQ Public Access System includes a mix of both quantitative and
qualitative emissions estimates, and in some cases, incomplete
emissions estimates for certain pollutants.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ FHWA is currently conducting a research effort in an
attempt to understand the impact of missing data in the
implementation of this measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to reflect the performance of the CMAQ program in reducing
on-road mobile source emissions, FHWA is proposing to include only
projects with quantitative emissions estimates in the proposed measure.
The FHWA understands that State DOTs and/or MPOs may want to amend
their project information with quantitative emissions estimates so the
emissions reductions can be included in the performance measure. The
FHWA is proposing that State DOTs and/or MPOs be allowed to amend their
emissions information for projects in the CMAQ Public Access System to
include a quantitative emissions estimate where a qualitative analysis
may have been used in the past or, in the case of PM emissions, where
an appropriate model was not available. State DOTs and/or MPOs would
not be required to amend their project information, but we are also
soliciting comments on other ways State DOTs and/or MPOs may update or
amend their project information with quantitative emissions estimates
for use in implementing this performance measure.
Focus on Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas When Assessing On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions
The FHWA heard from stakeholders that while all States receive some
level of CMAQ funding, the CMAQ on-road mobile source emissions measure
should only apply in nonattainment and maintenance areas. The main
purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund transportation projects or
programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS
for O3, CO, and PM (both PM10 and
PM2.5). Therefore, FHWA determined that the performance
measure should also focus on that same purpose. For this reason, the
proposed measure in this rulemaking is only applicable to nonattainment
and maintenance areas within a State. If a State does not have any
nonattainment or maintenance areas, then FHWA is proposing this measure
would not apply to them.
Further Improvements to the Public Access System To Ease the Assessment
On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
While the CMAQ Public Access System has been available since summer
2011, and FHWA has been keeping a database of CMAQ projects and their
estimated emissions since the beginning of the program, there are
opportunities to improve the data. In addition to increasing the number
of projects with quantitative emissions estimates, the quality of the
data and methods used to calculate emissions can also be improved. The
FHWA is developing a tool kit, that will be released in modules
beginning late spring 2016, of best practices for estimating emissions
by project type for project sponsors to improve the assumptions and
calculations used in their quantitative estimates. The FHWA developed
cost effectiveness tables \53\ to be used as a guide by State DOTs and
MPOs during the project selection process and when developing
performance plans under 23 U.S.C. 149(l). Finally, FHWA also improved
the function and usability of the Public Access System in February 2016
to make it easier to develop reports needed for both this rulemaking
and the CMAQ performance plan requirements under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/cost_effectiveness_tables/costeffectiveness.pdf.
\54\ https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/cmaq_pub/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Detailed Discussion of the Proposed Subparts
The elements discussed above were used by FHWA to develop the
proposed regulations presented in this rulemaking. The next sections of
this NPRM provide detailed discussions on each of the proposed measures
and how they could be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish and
report on targets and by FHWA to assess progress made toward the
achievement of targets.
1. Subpart A: General Information, Target Establishment, Reporting, and
NHPP and NHFP Significant Progress Determination
In this section, FHWA describes the proposed additions to Subpart
A, which covers general information, target establishment, reporting,
and NHPP and NHFP significant progress determination. This section
builds on the proposal introduced in the second NPRM that covered
measures to assess pavement and bridge condition on the NHS. For a
complete picture, readers are directed to the docket which contains the
regulatory text for Subpart A in its entirety. In addition, this
section also incorporates the FAST Act changes to the NHPP significant
progress determination, and the addition of a requirement for a NHFP
significant progress determination. The discussions of the proposed
requirements are organized as follows:
Section 490.101 discusses proposed definitions;
Section 490.103 describes the proposed data requirements;
Section 490.105 presents the proposed requirements related
to establishing performance targets;
Section 490.107 discusses reporting on performance
targets;
Section 490.109 describes assessing significant progress
toward achieving the performance targets for the NHPP and NHFP; and,
Section 490.111 discusses the material FHWA would
incorporate by reference into the proposed rule.
[[Page 23837]]
The proposed measures in this NPRM are summarized in Table 9 below.
The proposed measures are grouped in 490.105(c) to better reference the
proposed measures throughout Subpart A.
Table 9--Summary of Proposed Measures in the 3rd NPRM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric data source
Measure groups in Sec. Proposed Measure [23 CFR] & Measure
490.105(c) performance applicability [23 collection Metric reporting Metric calculation
measures [23 CFR] CFR] frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHS Travel time reliability Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Level of Travel Percentage of the
measures [Sec. 490.105(c)(4)]. Interstate System Interstate System Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Reliability Interstate
providing for [Sec. 490.503]. 490.103]--5- [Sec. (LOTTR) [Sec. direction-miles
Reliable Travel minute cycle. 490.511(d)]. 490.511]. of reporting
Times [Sec. segments with
490.507(a)(1)]. ``LOTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Percent of the non- Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Level of Travel Percentage of the
Interstate NHS non-Interstate Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Reliability Interstate
providing for NHS [Sec. 490.103]--5- [Sec. (LOTTR) [Sec. direction-miles
Reliable Travel 490.503]. minute cycle. 490.511(d)]. 490.511]. of reporting
Times [Sec. segments with
490.507(a)(2)]. ``LOTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Peak hour travel time measures Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Peak Hour Travel Percentage of the
[Sec. 490.105(c)(5)]. Interstate System Interstate System Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Ratio non-Interstate
where peak hour in urbanized 490.103]--5- [Sec. (PHTTR) [Sec. NHS direction-
travel times meet areas with a minute cycle. 490.511(d)]. 490.511]. miles of
expectations population over 1 reporting
[Sec. million [Sec. segments with ''
490.507(b)(1)]. 490.503]. PHTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Percent of the non- Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Peak Hour Travel Percentage of the
Interstate NHS non-Interstate Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Ratio non-Interstate
where peak hour NHS in urbanized 490.103]--5- [Sec. (PHTTR) [Sec. NHS direction-
travel times meet areas with a minute cycle. 490.611(d)]. 490.511]. miles of
expectations population over 1 reporting
[Sec. million [Sec. segments with ''
490.507(b)(2)]. 490.503]. PHTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Freight movement on the Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Truck Travel Time Percentage of the
Interstate System measures Interstate System Interstate System. Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Reliability [Sec. Interstate
[Sec. 490.105(c)(6)]. Mileage providing 490.103]--5- [Sec. 490.611]. direction-miles
for Reliable minute cycle. 490.611(d)]. of reporting
Truck Travel segments with
Times [Sec. ``Truck Travel
490.607(a)]. Time Reliability
<1.50''.
Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Average Truck Percentage of the
Interstate System Interstate System. Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Speed [Sec. Interstate
Mileage 490.103]--5- [Sec. 490.611]. direction-miles
Uncongested [Sec. minute cycle. 490.611(d)]. of reporting
490.607(b)]. segments with
``Average Truck
Speed 50 mph''
[Sec. 490.613].
Traffic congestion measure [Sec. Annual Hours of Mainline of NHS in NPMRDS or Annual metric Total Excessive Annual Hours of
490.105(c)(7)]. Excessive Delay urbanized areas Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Delay [Sec. Excessive Delay
Per Capita [Sec. with a population 490.103]--5- [Sec. 490.711]. per Capita =
490.707]. over 1 million in minute cycle. 490.711(f)]. (Total Excessive
Nonattainment or Traffic volume delay )/(total
Maintenance for and population population of UZA
any of the data in HPMS. ) [Sec.
criteria 490.713].
pollutants under
the CMAQ program.
On-road mobile source emissions Total Emission All Nonattainment CMAQ Public Access CMAQ Public Access Annual Project Cumulative
measure [Sec. 490.105(c)(8)]. Reductions for and Maintenance System. System [Sec. Emission emission
applicable areas for CMAQ 490.809]. Reductions [Sec. reduction due to
criteria criteria 490.811]. all projects for
pollutants [Sec. pollutants [Sec. each of the
490.807]. 490.803]. criteria
pollutant or
precursor for
which the area is
in nonattainment
or maintenance
(PM2.5, PM10, CO,
VOC and NOX).
[Sec. 490.813].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Section 490.101 General Definitions
In this section, FHWA proposes to define and describe the proposed
use of key terms that will be used throughout this NPRM. The first NPRM
and the second NPRM included several definitions (full extent, HPMS,
measure, metric, National Bridge Inventory (NBI), non-urbanized area,
performance period, and target) that are repeated in this NPRM to
clarify the proposed implementation of the performance measures. Please
see the docket for the entire listing of proposed definitions and for
any additional information.
The FHWA proposes to define ``criteria pollutant'' in the same way
as this term is defined in the general conformity rule at 40 CFR part
93, subpart B (specifically, 40 CFR 93.152). As part of this
definition, FHWA proposes to list the transportation-related criteria
pollutants from the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.102(b)(1).
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``freight
bottleneck'' for use in Part 490. A freight bottleneck is a segment of
the Interstate System not meeting thresholds for freight reliability
and congestion, as identified in section 490.613, and any other
locations the
[[Page 23838]]
State DOT wishes to identify as a bottleneck based on its own freight
plans or related documents.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``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. 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.\55\ Numerous State DOTs and
some MPOs use HPMS data and its analytical capabilities for supporting
their condition/performance assessment, investment requirement
analysis, strategic, and State planning efforts, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 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 FHWA can use throughout the Part. To have a consistent definition
for ``measure,'' FHWA proposes to make a distinction between
``measure'' and ``metric.'' Hence, 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 to include a definition of the ``National
Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS)'' because use of this
FHWA-furnished data set by States and MPOs is proposed for calculating
metrics to assess: Performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS in Subpart E; freight movement on the Interstate System
in Subpart F; and traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out
the CMAQ Program in Subpart G. The FHWA's proposed definition of the
NPMRDS is a data set derived from vehicle-based probe data that
includes average travel times representative of all segments of the NHS
for all traffic and for freight traffic. It is important to note that
for the purpose of this rulemaking, the freight measures require the
use of the freight traffic travel times that are representative of
freight trucks for those segments that are on the Interstate System
only. The NPMRDS includes freight trucks for all segments of the NHS.
Segments are defined by the Traffic Message Channel (TMC) location
referencing system used by private sector probe data providers. Segment
lengths are typically set as the distance between interchanges,
intersections, etc., on roadways, and can be as small as 1/10th of a
mile or longer than 10 miles, depending on location. The data set
contains records that include average travel times for every 5 minutes
of every day (24 hours) of the year, recorded and calculated for every
travel time segment where probe data is available. The NPMRDS does not
include any imputed travel time data (i.e., data that is not from
actual observations such as that derived from historical data for
similar days/times). The NPMRDS is used by FHWA to research and develop
transportation system performance measures and information related to
mobility, including travel time, speed, and reliability. Each travel
time segment in the NPMRDS has a maximum of 105,408 5-minute average
travel time data points annually.\56\ Monthly updates to the NPMRDS are
made available to State DOTs and MPOs by the middle of the month
following collection (e.g., February 2015 data would be available
around March 15, 2015). Each NPMRDS segment is identifiable via a
unique geographic location reference called a TMC code. The TMC codes
are used by most private sector mapping companies and data providers.
Any State DOT or MPO using NPMRDS data has the option to use the TMC
coding system to match the NPMRDS segment-level data to the State DOT
or MPO's own NHS location referencing system. The FHWA believes use of
a national travel time data set by States or MPOs will yield the best
data consistency across the States and MPOs and provide for total
coverage of the NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Estimate based on 12 records per hour, 24 hours per day,
and 366 days in the longest year that could occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'' area include a single
geographic area that includes all ``rural'' areas and small urban areas
that are larger than ``rural'' areas but do not meet the criteria of an
``urbanized area'' (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34)). This would
then allow State DOTs to establish different targets throughout the
entire State for urbanized areas and a target for a non-urbanized area.
For target establishment purposes, 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
years that would be used to assess non-safety
[[Page 23839]]
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 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. For the measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(7) in Parts C through G, FHWA proposes a definition for
``Performance period'' that would cover a 4-year period beginning on
January 1 of the calendar year in which State DOT targets are due to
FHWA, as discussed in section 490.105. For the on-road mobile source
emission measure in section 490.105(c)(8) in Part H, FHWA proposes a
definition for ``Performance period'' that would cover a 4-year period
beginning on October 1st of the year prior in which State DOT targets
are due to FHWA, as discussed in section 490.105. Please refer to
section 490.105(e)(4) for more details. 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 Parts C though H. The proposed measures for
the HSIP provided for in section 490.209 in Part B where FHWA proposed
a 1 calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target
establishment and reporting.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Reporting Segment''
because, with FHWA's approval, State DOTs and MPOs may choose to
combine individual Travel Time Segments (such as the TMC codes
referenced in the prior paragraph) into longer, contiguous reporting
segments. The FHWA's proposed definition of ``Reporting Segment'' is
the length of roadway that is comprised of one or more contiguous
Travel Time Segments that the State DOT and MPOs coordinate to define
for metric calculation 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.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Transportation
Management Area (TMA)'' consistent with the definition in 23 CFR
450.104.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Travel Time Data
Set'' because in the event that either (1) NPMRDS data is unavailable,
or (2) a State DOT requests, and FHWA approves the use of an equivalent
data set, then the approved equivalent set of travel time data can be
used to calculate metrics to assess performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS, freight movement on the Interstate
System, and traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
Program. The FHWA's proposed definition of ``Travel Time Data Set'' is
either the NPMRDS or an FHWA-approved equivalent data set that is used
to carry out the requirements in Subparts E, F, and G of Part 490.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Travel Time
Reliability'' since this term is used to describe proposed measures for
the performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS and for
freight movement on the Interstate System. The FHWA's proposed
definition for Travel Time Reliability is consistency or dependability
of travel times from day to day or across different times of the day.
The definition is based on one that FHWA has used in prior research and
studies. The FHWA believes that Travel Time Reliability is important to
many transportation system users, including vehicle drivers, public
transit riders, and freight shippers. All of these users value Travel
Time Reliability, or consistent travel times, more than average travel
time because it provides reliability and efficiency when planning for
trip times.
The FHWA's proposed definition of ``Travel Time Segment'' is a set
length, which is contiguous, of the NHS for which average travel time
data are summarized in the Travel Time Data Set (in the NPMRDS, this
would be the TMC codes).
The FHWA proposes to incorporate definitions for ``attainment
area,'' ``maintenance area,'' ``metropolitan planning organization
(MPO),'' ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
``nonattainment area,'' and ``Transportation Management Area (TMA)'' as
these terms are defined in the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan and
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Regulations in 23 CFR 450.104.
Discussion of Section 490.103 Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing in section 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 would be maintained in the HPMS and
used to calculate measures that are applicable to specific urbanized
areas or to assess State DOT progress toward the achievement of targets
established for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. These boundaries are
to be reported to HPMS in the year the State DOT Baseline Performance
Report is due (required in section 490.107(b)), and are applicable to
the entire performance period (defined in section 490.101 and described
in section 490.105(e)(4)), 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
(section 490.105(e)(3)), and progress reporting (section 490.107(b))
for the measures identified in section 490.105(c). As discussed in
section 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, 2018. The FHWA approved urbanized area data
available in HPMS on June 16, 2018, is to be used.
In section 490.103(c), FHWA is proposing that the boundaries for
the nonattainment and maintenance areas be identified for the entire
performance period as they are designated and reported by the EPA under
the NAAQS for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the CMAQ
program.
[[Page 23840]]
The nonattainment and maintenance area would be based on the effective
date of EPA designations as published in the Federal Register at 40 CFR
part 81. States may also want to review EPA's ``Green Book'' \57\ Web
site that provides an easy to search tool by pollutant of EPA
designations and links to the associated Federal Register Notices. The
EPA's ``Green Book'' is updated about twice per year, so States should
also check with their local FHWA division office to ensure they have a
complete list of all nonattainment and maintenance areas for the
performance period. Any changes in the nonattainment or maintenance
areas in a State during a performance period would not be accounted for
until the following performance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 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
(section 490.105(c)), target scope (section 490.105(d)), progress
reporting (section 490.107(b)), and determining significant progress
(section 490.109(d)) for the measures identified in section
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7). As discussed in section 490.105(e)(3)(i),
the NHS limits dataset referenced in the Baseline Performance Report is
to be applied to the entire performance period, regardless of changes
to the NHS approved and submitted to HPMS during the performance
period.
Depending on when the final rule for this proposal is effective,
FHWA plans to determine and publish which State DOTs and MPOs are
required to establish targets for each of the proposed measures in
Subparts C through H 1 year prior to State DOT's reporting of the
targets for the first performance period. The FHWA plans to make the
determination based on the following information: Population data from
the latest Decennial Census from the U.S. Census Bureau, NHS data from
HPMS, and the EPA designated nonattainment and maintenance area
published in the Federal Register at 40 CFR part 81 \58\ at the time of
determination. Based on this information, FHWA plans to publish a list
on its Web site of State DOTs and MPOs meeting the target establishment
requirements for Subparts C-H. Please refer to the discussions for
sections 490.105(d), 490.105(e)(1), and 490.107(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ States may also use EPA's ``Green Book'' (https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/) as a reference to check
the status of EPA designations and find links to the associated
Federal Register Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning with the second performance period and continuing with
each performance period thereafter, at the start of each performance
period, FHWA will extract the population data from the latest Decennial
Census from the U.S. Census Bureau, NHS data from HPMS, and the EPA
designated nonattainment and maintenance areas published in the Federal
Register at 40 CFR part 81, to determine which State DOTs and MPOs are
required to establish targets for each of the proposed measures in
Subparts C-H, for that performance period. Based on this information,
and at the start of each performance period, FHWA plans to publish a
list on its Web site of State DOTs and MPOs meeting the target
establishment requirements for Subparts C-H.
In section 490.103(e), FHWA is proposing for State DOTs and MPOs to
use the NPMRDS data to calculate the metrics defined in sections
490.511, 490.611, and 490.711 to ensure all data used by State DOTs to
calculate travel time and speed related metrics are consistent and
complete. If more detailed and accurate travel time data exists
locally, FHWA is proposing that this data could be used in place of, or
in combination with the NPMRDS, provided it is first approved by FHWA.
The NPMRDS is a data set that includes travel times representative
of all traffic using the highway system, including a breakdown of
travel times of freight vehicles and passenger vehicles. Travel times
are recorded on contiguous segments of roadway covering the entire
mainline NHS. For the NPMRDS the sources of vehicle probes could
include mobile phones, vehicle transponders, and portable navigation
devices. Within this data set, the average travel time derived from all
vehicle probes traversing each Travel Time Segment is recorded for
every 5 minute period throughout every day of the year. This recorded
average travel time is referenced as being stored in a ``5 minute bin''
in this rulemaking. Travel times are only included in the data set if
during the 5 minute interval vehicle probes were present to measure
travel speeds; consequently, there are no imputed (averaged from
similar historical travel periods or estimated) travel times in the
data set. The NHS data used in the NPMRDS dataset will be extracted
from HPMS on August 15 each year. State DOTs are to provide the
necessary NHS information to HPMS in accordance with the HPMS Field
Manual. States should make every effort to submit NHS data to HPMS in a
timely manner to ensure the NPMRDS dataset is as complete as possible.
The NPMRDS is provided monthly and made available to State DOTs and
MPOs for their use in managing the performance of the highway system.
The FHWA expects to continue to provide for this data at a national
level and to make it available to State DOTs and MPOs to ensure the
data consistency and coverage needed to assess system performance at a
national level.
The FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs and MPOs have developed
robust programs to manage system operations, including collection of
travel time data that may be more appropriate and effective to use as
an alternative source to the NPMRDS. Considering this, FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs and MPOs may utilize alternative data
sources, referred to hereafter as ``equivalent data source(s),'' to
calculate the travel time metrics proposed in this rulemaking provided
the alternative data source is at least ``equivalent'' in the design
and structure of the data as well as extent of coverage both spatially
and temporally to the NPMRDS to ensure for consistency in performance
assessment at a national level. The FHWA expects that the travel time
data set could include a combination of equivalent data source data and
NPMRDS data, as long as the combination covers the full NHS. The FHWA
is also proposing that State DOTs request and receive approval from
FHWA to use equivalent data source(s), to ensure data quality is
maintained. The same travel time data for each travel time segment must
be used by both State DOTs and MPOs in all measure calculation (in
other words, the following must not happen: The State DOT uses NPMRDS
and the MPO uses an equivalent data source for the same travel time
segment). The FHWA expects that State DOTs and MPOs will work
collaboratively to come to agreement on the data sources to use to meet
the requirements proposed in this rulemaking.
The FHWA is proposing in section 490.103(e) that the use of
equivalent data source(s) be requested by State DOTs and approved by
FHWA before the beginning of a performance period. The FHWA anticipates
that State DOTs could change their data source during a performance
period, recognizing that over this period a State DOT may elect to use
an equivalent data source(s) or change back to the NPMRDS based on
future data options, quality, and availability. The FHWA is proposing
[[Page 23841]]
that State DOTs limit requests for the use of equivalent data sources
to no more frequently than once per calendar year, and only include
requests for data to be collected beginning on January 1 of the
calendar year following the request. The request to use equivalent data
source(s) would need to be submitted no later than October 1 prior to
the beginning of the calendar year in which the data would be used to
calculate metrics. The FHWA would need to approve the use of the
equivalent data source(s) prior to implementation and use by a State
DOT.
For example, a State DOT can elect to use the NPMRDS for the first
performance period (anticipated to begin on January 1, 2018). If the
State DOT acquires the resources to collect more accurate and complete
data in 2019, the State DOT would need to submit a request for FHWA's
approval of the equivalent data source(s), including the travel time
segment(s) it is being used on, no later than October 1, 2019, and FHWA
would have to approve its use. The State DOT could then use the FHWA
approved equivalent data source(s) to calculate the travel time and
speed metrics beginning on January 1, 2020.
The FHWA is proposing that for each performance year, the same data
sources (i.e., NPMRDS or equivalent data is used for the same travel
time segments for all referenced measures) be used to calculate the
annual metrics proposed in subparts E, F, and G. The State DOT
reporting of metrics to the HPMS proposed in subparts E, F, and G allow
the State DOT to reference the reporting segments by either the NPMRDS
TMC code or by HPMS location referencing. It is important to note that
if a State DOT elects to use an approved equivalent data source they
would be required to submit metrics using HPMS location referencing as
FHWA would only have the ability to conflate NPMRDS TMC codes to the
HPMS roadway network and not TMC codes used in other travel time data
sources.
The FHWA is proposing for State DOTs to establish, in coordination
with applicable MPOs, and submit reporting segments as discussed in
section 490.103 of this rulemaking. State DOTs and MPOs must use the
same reporting segment for the purposes of calculating the metrics and
measures proposed in subparts E, F, and G.
The State DOT and MPO must use the same reporting segments for all
subparts. Several measures would use the information calculated from
the reporting segments and convert segment length into mileage to
calculate the actual measure, which is described in more detail for
each specific measure.
Reporting segments would be distinct sections of roadway that could
include one or more contiguous travel time segments. This requirement
is being proposed as FHWA anticipates that State DOTs would prefer to
join shorter travel time segments into more logical lengths of roadway
for reporting purposes. To maintain the granularity needed to capture
performance changes, FHWA is proposing that in urbanized areas,
reporting segments would not exceed \1/2\ mile in length unless a
single travel time segment is longer in length, and in non-urbanized
areas, would not exceed 10 miles in length unless a single travel time
segment in the travel time data is longer in length. If a single travel
time segment in the travel time data is longer than a \1/2\ mile in
length in urbanized areas or 10 miles in length in non-urbanized areas,
the reporting segment would be the length of that single travel time
segment.
In order to ensure that the reporting segments cover the complete
NHS within a State, FHWA is proposing that the reporting segments be
continuous and cover the full extent of the mainline highways of the
NHS. The FHWA considered alternative approaches to defining reporting
segments that would represent roadway key corridors to show travel time
performance for the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS. Although
FHWA believes that corridor level evaluations are effective in managing
system operations, we did not feel that a corridor based approach could
be designed and implemented in manner that would provide for the
consistency and reliability needed to report on performance at a State
and national level. For this reason, FHWA is proposing that the
reporting segments represent 100 percent of the mainline highways on
the NHS applicable to the measures in subparts E, F, and G.
Although the State DOTs would be the entity required to submit
reporting segments, MPOs would need to coordinate with State DOTs on
defining these reporting lengths for those roadways that are within the
portion of the metropolitan planning area included within the State
boundary. In addition, it is recommended that States DOTs coordinate
with any local transportation operating agencies that have influence
over the management of traffic operations in making the final decision
on reporting segment lengths.
In section 490.103(g), FHWA is proposing that the State DOT would
submit its reporting segments to FHWA no later than November 1, prior
to the beginning of the calendar year in in which they will be used.
These reporting segments would be used throughout the performance
period. If the State DOT requests and FHWA approves an equivalent
travel time data source during the performance period, the State DOT
would need to submit a new set of reporting segments that would
correspond to the new travel time data source segmentation. These
reporting segments are to be submitted to FHWA by November 1 prior to
the beginning of the calendar year in which they will be used. For the
purposes of carrying out the requirements proposed in Subpart E, FHWA
is proposing that the State DOT submit the travel times desired for
each reporting segment that is fully included within urbanized areas
with populations over 1 million during the peak period travel times
(both morning and evening). The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would
submit reporting segments and the desired travel times to HPMS. The
FHWA intends to issue additional guidance on how State DOTs could
report these data to HPMS. Finally, the State DOT would be required to
submit documentation to demonstrate the applicable MPOs' agreement on
the travel time data set used, the defined reporting segments, and the
desired travel times.
Discussion of Section 490.105 Establishment of Performance Targets
Performance target requirements specific to HSIP-related measures
would be established in accordance with section 490.209 of the first
performance management NPRM; and performance target requirements
specific to pavement condition measures in sections 490.307(a) and
bridge condition measures in sections 490.407(c) are included in the
second performance management NPRM. The discussions specific to those
measures will not be repeated in this NPRM. For additional information,
please see the docket for the proposed regulatory text for Part 490, in
its entirety that covers both prior NRPMs.
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
decisionmaking processes.
[[Page 23842]]
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 and strategy 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 section 490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements for
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of targets for all
measures identified in section 490.105(c), which include the proposed
measures both in this performance management NPRM and the second
performance management NPRM. This regulatory text, in its entirety, can
be found in the docket. 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 section 490.105(a) for State DOTs and MPOs to
establish targets for each performance measure identified in section
490.105(c). In section 490.105(b), the performance targets for carrying
out the HSIP would be established in accordance with section 490.209 of
the first performance management NPRM.
In section 490.105(c), FHWA proposes that State DOTs and MPOs that
include, within their respective geographic boundaries, any portion of
the applicable transportation network or projects would establish
performance targets for the performance measures identified in Subparts
C through H. The transportation network or geographic areas applicable
to each measure is specified in Subparts C through H under sections
490.303, 490.403, 490.503, 490.603, 490.703, and 490.803, respectively.
It is possible that for some measures, the applicable transportation
network or geographic area may not be contained within the State or
metropolitan planning area geographic boundary. In these cases State
DOTs and MPOs would not be required to establish targets. The
performance target requirements established by Congress in 23 U.S.C.
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) require State DOTs
and MPOs to establish targets for the measures described in 23 U.S.C.
150(c), where applicable. Consequently, State DOTs and MPOs are only
required to establish targets where their respective geographic
boundary contains portions of the transportation network or geographic
area that are applicable to the measure. For example, the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times specified in section 490.507(a)(1) is applicable, as proposed in
section 490.503(a)(1), to ``mainline highways on the Interstate
System.'' In this example, if Interstate System mainline highways are
not contained within the boundary of an MPO's metropolitan planning
area the measure would not be applicable to that MPO. As a result, that
MPO would not be required to establish a target for the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times specified in section 490.507(a)(1).
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(d)(1) that State DOTs
establish statewide targets that represent performance outcomes of the
transportation network or geographic area within their State boundary,
and MPOs establish targets that represent performance outcomes of the
transportation network or geographic area within their respective
metropolitan planning area for the proposed NHS travel time reliability
measures (section 490.507(a)), freight movement on the Interstate
System measures (section 490.607), and on-road mobile source emissions
measure (section 490.807). State DOTs and, if applicable, MPOs are
encouraged to coordinate their target-establishment with neighboring
States and MPOs to the extent practicable.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(d)(2) that State DOTs and MPOs
would establish a single urbanized area target, as described in
sections 490.105(e)(8) and 490.105(f)(4), respectively, that would
represent the performance of the transportation network in each area
applicable to the peak hour travel time measures (section 490.507(b))
and traffic congestion measure (section 490.707) as proposed in
sections 490.503(a)(2) and 490.703, respectively. The applicable areas
for the peak hour travel time measures are proposed to be urbanized
areas with a population greater than 1 million. A subset of these areas
would be applicable to the traffic congestion measure: Those areas that
also contain any part of an area designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the
CMAQ program. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census,\59\ the peak hour travel
time measures would be applicable to the transportation network in 42
urbanized areas of which 33 of these areas (based on the effective date
of EPA's most recent designations in 40 CFR part 81) would apply to the
traffic congestion measure. The FHWA believes that this proposed
approach of limiting the applicability of the peak hour travel time and
traffic congestion measures is needed to focus performance measurement
and reporting on only those areas in the United States where
transportation demand can have a considerable impact on performance and
where the planning and management of system operations are critical to
the achievement of improved outcomes. The FHWA also believes that the
State DOTs and MPOs in these larger urbanized areas have the experience
and capability needed to meet these performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Urbanized Area Boundary Data: 2010 TIGER/LINE Shapefile
published by the U.S. Census Bureau (Accessed on 8/7/2013): ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2010/UA/2010/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 490.105(d), 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 MPO, respectively, and recognizes
that the State DOT and the MPO need to consider this uncertainty when
establishing targets. For example, some Federal and tribal lands
include 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)
[[Page 23843]]
through (c)(7). State DOTs may request modifications to the NHS, which
could result in additions, deletions, or relocations. 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 for 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 in section
490.105(d)(3) that State DOTs must declare and 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 section 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. Any changes in NHS limits or urbanized area boundaries during a
performance period would not be accounted for until the following
performance period.
In section 490.105(e), FHWA proposes the State DOT requirements for
the establishment of targets for all measures identified in section
490.105(c), with applicable transportation network for those targets
(target scope) defined in section 490.105(d). As defined in section
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, Percent of
the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times (in section
490.507(a)(1)), would be a percentage of directional mainline highways
on the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times (sections
490.503(a)(1) and 490.513(b)) expressed in one tenth of a percent.
Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for this measure would be a
percentage of directional mainline highways on the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times expressed in one tenth of a
percent. As a hypothetical example, a 2-year target and a 4-year target
would be 39.5 percent and 38.5 percent, respectively for the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1) and (e), FHWA proposes in section
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 section 490.107(b)(1). The FHWA is
proposing that this rule would have an individual effective date.
Accordingly, FHWA anticipates the final rule for this proposal would be
effective no later than October 1, 2017. This would provide for at
least a 1-year period for States to establish targets so that they can
be reported in the first State Biennial Performance Report which would
be due to FHWA by October 1, 2018. The FHWA recognizes that if the
final rule is effective after October 1, 2017, 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 will not be effective
until after October 1, 2017, FHWA will consider adjusting the due date
in the final rule or issuing 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 section
490.105(e)(6), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs will 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 section
490.105(e)(2) that State DOTs 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. This
coordination is particularly needed for the establishment of the
targets for the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures
since a single target will be established for each applicable \60\
urbanized area that would need to be reported identically by each
applicable State DOT and MPO. Please refer to sections 490.105(e)(8)
and 490.105(f)(4) for discussion on the targets for the peak hour
travel time and traffic congestion measures. The FHWA is seeking
comment on examples of effective State DOT and MPO coordination. The
FHWA is specifically requesting comment on the following questions
related to State DOT and MPO coordination in light of the proposed
performance management requirements in this rule: What obstacles do
States and MPOs foresee to joint coordination in order to comply with
the proposed requirements? What mechanisms currently exist or could be
created to facilitate coordination? What role should FHWA play in
assisting States and MPOs in complying with these proposed new
requirements? What mechanisms exist or could be created to share data
effectively between States and MPOs? Are there opportunities for States
and MPOs to share analytical tools and processes? For those States and
MPOs that already utilize some type of performance management
framework, what are best practices that they can share?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million;
Traffic congestion measure: Urbanized area with a population
greater than 1 million and also any part of the urbanized area is
designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to
establish additional targets, beyond the required statewide target, for
any of the proposed measures for the travel time reliability measures
and freight movement on Interstate System measures described in
sections 490.507(a) and 490.607, respectively. This is intended to give
the State DOT flexibility when setting targets and to aid the State DOT
in accounting for differences in urbanized areas and the non-urbanized
area. 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. For
instance, a State DOT could choose to establish additional targets for
a single
[[Page 23844]]
urbanized area, a number of the urbanized areas, or all of the
urbanized areas separately or collectively. For State DOTs 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). For each additional target established, State DOTs would
evaluate whether they have made progress toward achieving each target
and report on that progress in their biennial performance report in
accordance with sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
The FHWA intends to issue guidance regarding the voluntary
establishment of additional performance targets for urbanized areas and
the non-urbanized area.
As proposed in section 490.105(e)(3)(v), for some measures State
DOTs will not be able to establish additional targets. Since peak hour
travel time measures and traffic congestion measures are proposed to
apply only to certain urbanized areas \61\ (please refer to section
490.105(e)(8) for target establishment discussion for these measures),
it would not be appropriate to have additional targets. In addition,
FHWA anticipates that State DOTs would focus on managing performance
for on-road mobile source emissions for those areas designated as
nonattainment and maintenance areas,\62\ as discussed in section
490.803, regardless of whether those designated areas are located in
urbanized area or in non-urbanized area. Thus, rather than the option
for establishing additional targets for urbanized areas and the non-
urbanized area, FHWA proposes that State DOTs could establish
additional targets for any combination of nonattainment and maintenance
areas for the on-road mobile source emissions measure. Please refer to
section 490.105(e)(9) for target establishment discussion for on-road
mobile source emissions measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million;
Traffic congestion measure: Urbanized area with a population
greater than 1 million and also any part of the urbanized area is
designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program.
\62\ Nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
two statewide targets for NHS travel time reliability measures
(separate target for each of the two measures identified in section
490.507(a)). If a State DOT chooses to establish additional targets for
the two NHS travel time reliability measures for the single largest
urbanized area in its State, the State DOT would increase the total
number of NHS travel time reliability targets to four (2 required
targets + 2 additional urbanized area targets = 4).
For each additional target established, State DOTs would evaluate
whether they have made progress toward achieving each target and report
on that progress in their biennial performance report in accordance
with sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
Any additional targets the State DOT chooses to establish would not
be subject to the significant progress assessment in section 490.109.
Because these additional targets are optional and subcomponents of
targets established under section 490.105(d), including them in the
significant progress assessment proposed in section 490.109 could
result in ``double counting'' during that assessment. The FHWA believes
that excluding these additional targets from the significant progress
assessment in section 490.109 provides an opportunity for some
flexibility with respect to establishing the targets and may 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 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 flexibility 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).
As described in section 490.105(f), an MPO would have the option to
establish a quantifiable target for their metropolitan planning area.
As provided 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 urbanized and metropolitan planning areas
cross multiple State boundaries. The FHWA intends for State DOTs and
the MPOs to collectively consider boundary differences 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. Multistate MPOs would also be
expected to provide the data stratified by State. The FHWA seeks
comments on target establishment options and coordination methods that
could be used by MPOs and State DOTs in areas where the MPO
metropolitan planning area crosses multiple States.
To illustrate the differences in boundaries and how they might be
addressed for one of the travel time reliability 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 Decennial Census, the
State of Maryland
[[Page 23845]]
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 in the 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 the
Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times within their
entire metropolitan planning area, regardless of State boundary. In the
case of the Hagerstown--Eastern Panhandle MPO in Maryland/Pennsylvania/
West Virginia, the MPO would establish target for the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times within its metropolitan planning
boundary that extends beyond Maryland State boundary and into
Pennsylvania and West Virginia State boundaries, 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 is also requesting comment on whether the regulations should
include more information or specificity about how the MPOs and States
should coordinate on target establishment. For some measures proposed
in this NPRM, MPOs could establish targets up to 180 days after the
State DOT establishes its targets.
The FHWA proposes in section 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. For the measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) of
this section, each performance period, defined in section 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 section 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. For the on-road mobile source emission measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8) of this section, each performance period would
begin at the start of the Federal fiscal year, on October 1st of the
year prior to which the State DOT target is reported in the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA and would extend for a
duration of 4 Federal fiscal years. The midpoint of a performance
period for the on-mobile source emission measure would occur 2 Federal
fiscal years after the beginning of a performance period. For all
measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7), 2-year targets would
represent the anticipated or intended condition/performance level at
the midpoint of each respective performance period, and 4-year targets
would represent the anticipated or intended condition/performance level
at the end of each respective performance period. For the on-road
mobile source emission measure in section 490.105(c)(8), 2-year targets
would represent the anticipated cumulative emissions reduction for the
first 2 years of a performance period, and 4-year targets would
represent the anticipated cumulative emissions reduction for the entire
performance period. Please refer to section 490.105(e)(9) for
discussion on targets for on-road mobile source emission measure. It is
important to emphasize that established targets (2-year and 4-year
targets for all measures in paragraph (c) of this section) 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 \63\ and NHS
asset management plans.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 23 U.S.C. 135(f).
\64\ 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 believes
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 DOT's 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 section 490.105(c) and report the
established targets to FHWA by the statutory deadline for the first
biennial report of October 1, 2018.\65\ If the final rule is published
after September 1, 2016, FHWA will publish guidance to assist State
DOTs in complying with Section 150(e) of MAP-21. 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.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
\66\ 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 and reporting
cycles associated with proposed measures. For example, the timeframe of
collected data used for calculating a measure for the proposed measures
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) is on a calendar year basis, but
the timeframe of reported data used for calculating a measure for the
proposed on-road mobile source emissions measure in paragraph (c)(8) is
on a Federal fiscal year basis. The FHWA also assessed the inherent
time lag between data collection and target establishment due to
necessary data processing, data quality management,
[[Page 23846]]
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. Consequently, FHWA
proposes two different performance periods--one for the measures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) and one for on-road mobile source
emissions measure in paragraph (c)(8). The FHWA proposes that that the
first 4-year performance period start on January 1, 2018, and end on
December 31, 2021, and subsequent performance periods would follow
thereafter, for the measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) and
first 4-year performance period start on October 1, 2017, and end on
September 30, 2021, and subsequent performance periods would follow
thereafter, for the measures in paragraph (c)(8). As indicated
previously, FHWA plans to align performance periods for the proposed
measures in this NPRM (measures in paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(7) and
the measures proposed in the second performance management measure NPRM
\67\ (measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3)). Diagrams for
proposed performance periods for target establishment, condition/
performance measure data collection and assessment, and biennial
performance reporting are exhibited in Figures 1 and 2. Please see
section 490.107(a)(4) for discussion on the Initial State Performance
Report, which is due on October 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the National Performance
Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program 80 FR 2014-30085 (published January 5,
2015) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-05/pdf/2014-30085.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.000
[[Page 23847]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.001
As shown in Figure 1, for the first performance period for all
measures except on-road mobile source emissions measure in paragraph
(c)(8), the latest measured condition/performance data through December
31, 2017, 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, 2019, 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 which would be indicated
by the latest measured condition/performance data through the end of
the performance period (December 31, 2021, for the first performance
period). The FHWA recognizes that the previously programmed projects
may have an impact on the target a State DOT establishes for the first
performance period. State DOTs should consider the impact of previously
programmed projects on future performance outcomes when establishing
their targets.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the latest 4-year cumulative emissions
reductions results from CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2014 through
fiscal year 2017, is the baseline condition/performance. For the first
performance period for the on-road mobile source emissions measure,
State DOTs would establish 2-year targets which would reflect the
anticipated cumulative emissions reductions resulting from CMAQ
projects to be reported in the CMAQ Public Access System (described in
section 490.809) for the Federal fiscal years 2018 and 2019. Thus, the
2-year target would be the anticipated sum of total emission reductions
in the CMAQ Public Access System for the Federal fiscal years 2018 and
2019 for each criteria pollutant and applicable precursors for which
the area is nonattainment or maintenance. Similarly, the State DOTs
would establish 4-year targets as the anticipated cumulative emissions
reductions resulting from CMAQ projects to be reported in the CMAQ
Public Access System for the Federal fiscal years 2018 through 2021.
Thus, the 4-year target would be the anticipated sum of total emission
reductions in the CMAQ Public Access System for the Federal fiscal
years 2018 through 2021 for each criteria pollutant and applicable
precursors for which the area is nonattainment or maintenance. Similar
to other measures, FHWA recognizes that the previously programmed CMAQ
projects may have an impact on target a State DOT establishes for the
first performance period. State DOTs should consider the impact of
previously programmed CMAQ projects on future performance outcomes when
establishing their targets.
It is important to note that the timeframe of collected data used
for calculating a measure depends on the individual measure. Data
collection frequency requirements and the timeframe for when State DOTs
and MPOs would collect data used for calculating a measure are proposed
in the Data Requirement and Calculation of Performance Measure Sections
for each measure in the relevant Subparts. This proposed timeline,
depicted in Figures 1 and 2, is intended to: (1) Satisfy the first
State DOT biennial performance
[[Page 23848]]
report due on October 1, 2018, as described in the discussion on
section 490.107; (2) accommodate data collection cycles and the
timeframe for when State DOTs and MPOs would collect data used for
calculating a measure; 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 and NHFP targets as required under 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23 U.S.C. 167(j). The FHWA must make this
determination every 2 years, after a State DOT submits each biennial
report.
The FHWA proposes in section 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 by
23 U.S.C. 150(e) as specified in section 490.107. As discussed in
section 490.105(e)(2), State DOT coordination with relevant MPOs is
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 as
described in section 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 section 490.109(e)(5)) outside the control of the State DOTs.
Thus, FHWA proposes in section 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
section 490.107(b)(2)). This target adjustment allowance would be
limited to this specific report and not be 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 2018
(the 1st State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figures 1 and
2) may be adjusted in 2020 (2nd State Biennial Performance Report
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2). The State DOT would report and justify
this adjusted target in the second State Biennial Performance Report
due in October 2020 (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report). As
discussed in section 490.105(d)(2) of this section, FHWA proposes that
State DOTs and MPOs would establish a single urbanized area \68\
target, as described in section 490.105(e)(8), that would represent the
performance of the transportation network in each area applicable to
the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures. Thus, FHWA
proposes that any adjustments made to 4-year targets established for
the peak hour travel time and/or traffic congestion measures would be
agreed upon and made collectively by all State DOTs and MPOs that
include any portion of the NHS in the respective urbanized area
applicable to the measure. The details of reporting requirements for
adjusting a target are discussed in section 490.107(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million; Traffic congestion measure:
Urbanized area with a population greater than 1 million and also any
part of the urbanized area is designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the
CMAQ Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 490.105(e)(7), FHWA proposes a phase-in for the
establishment of targets for the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure, provided in section 490.507(a)(2). This phase-in
would require only State DOTs to establish 4-year targets for the first
performance period for this measure (reported in the 1st State Biennial
Performance Report as illustrated in Figure 1) for non-Interstate NHS
travel time reliability measure, provided in section 490.507(a)(2). The
FHWA is proposing this phase-in to allow sufficient time for State DOTs
and MPOs to become more proficient in managing performance of non-
Interstate roadways and for the coverage of the data, during peak
periods, to become more complete in the NPMRDS. At the midpoint of the
first performance period State DOTs would have the option to adjust the
4-year targets they established at the beginning of the performance
period in their State Biennial Performance Report (report due in
October 2020 as illustrated in Figure 1). This will allow State DOTs to
consider more complete data in their decision on the 4-year targets for
non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability. Although 2-year targets
would not be established in the first performance period, FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs still would report metrics annually, as
required in section 490.511(d)), for the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure.
Similarly FHWA is proposing to phase-in the reporting of baseline
travel time reliability performance for the non-Interstate NHS travel
time reliability measure. The FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
report baseline performance in the 2nd State Biennial Performance
Report in 2020 (instead of the 1st report due in 2018) for non-
Interstate NHS travel time reliability. This baseline would represent
the performance through the end of 2019 (i.e., 2-year condition/
performance). Also, as State DOTs would not be establishing 2-year
targets for non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability, FHWA will not
evaluate performance progress at the midpoint of the first performance
period (discussed further in section 490.109(e)(3)) for this measure.
In section 490.105(e)(8), as discussed in sections 490.507(b) and
490.707, FHWA proposes that the peak hour travel time measure would
apply to the roadway transportation network in urbanized areas with a
population over 1 million and the traffic congestion measure would
include these same areas that also contain areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance areas for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable under the CMAQ program. The FHWA proposes that State DOTs,
with mainline highways on the Interstate System that cross any part of
an urbanized area with a population more than 1 million within its
geographic State boundary, would establish a target for peak-hour
travel time for the Interstate System for that urbanized area.
Similarly, FHWA proposes that State DOTs, with mainline highways on the
non-Interstate NHS that cross any part of an urbanized area with a
population more than 1 million within its geographic State boundary,
would establish a target for peak-hour travel time for the non-
Interstate NHS for that urbanized area. The FHWA proposes that if a
State DOT is required to establish targets for either of the peak hour
travel time measures for an urbanized area and that urbanized area
contains any part of a nonattainment or maintenance area for any one of
the criteria pollutants, as specified in section 490.703, then that
State DOT would also be required establish targets
[[Page 23849]]
for the traffic congestion measure. For instance, if a State is in
attainment for the applicable criteria pollutants, but that State is
part of a multistate urbanized area with more than 1 million in
population and another part of that urbanized area contains an
applicable nonattainment or maintenance area then the State that is in
attainment would be required to work with the other States and
establish a traffic congestion target.
In deciding to limit the applicability of these performance
measures, FHWA considered a number of factors. In general, the boundary
limits of large urbanized areas are representative of population size
and density. The FHWA believes that the need to plan for and manage
transportation demand is greatest in areas of the country where
populations are high and more densely located. The FHWA also believes
that in these largest urbanized areas State DOTs and MPOs have the
experience and capability needed to plan and manage high levels of
transportation demand. For these reasons, FHWA is proposing, as
discussed in Subparts E and G, an approach to limit the applicability
of the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures to only
those roadway networks that are contained in very large urbanized
areas. The FHWA believes that the MAP-21 statewide and metropolitan
target establishment provisions \69\ only require State DOTs and MPOs
to establish targets where the measure is applicable to them. Because
some State DOTs and MPOs do not include these very large urbanized
areas, it is highly likely that those State DOTs and MPOs would not be
required to establish targets for the peak hour travel time and traffic
congestion measures. Based on the 2010 Decennial U.S. Census \70\ and a
recent EPA designation \71\ of nonattainment and maintenance areas,
there are 42 urbanized areas in the country where the population is
greater than 1 million and of these 33 are designated as nonattainment
or maintenance areas. Using these boundaries, 35 State DOTs and 67 MPOs
\72\ would be required to establish targets for peak hour travel time
measures and 33 State DOTs and 42 MPOs would be required to establish a
target for the traffic congestion measure. Based on the data available,
FHWA has estimated the State DOTs and MPOs who might be affected by
proposed peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures. A list
\73\ of those State DOTs and MPOs is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Target establishment provisions: Statewide 23
U.S.C.135(d)(2)(B)(i)(I); Metropolitan 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I).
\70\ Urbanized Area Boundary Data: 2010 TIGER/LINE Shapefile
published by the U.S. Census Bureau (Accessed on 8/7/2013): ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2010/UA/2010/ Population Data for
Urbanized Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html.
\71\ The status of the nonattainment/maintenance areas was
verified on 5/1/2015 based on EPA's Green Book (updated on April 14,
2015): https://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_download.html.
\72\ Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA HEPGIS (Accessed on
10/15/2015): https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/
ViewMap.aspx?map=MPO+Boundaries[verbar]MPO+Boundary#.
\73\ Documents ``Peak Hour Travel Time Measure States and
MPOs.pdf'' and ``CMAQ Measure States and MPOs.pdf'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA is proposing that the applicable areas would be determined
at the beginning of a performance period and remain for the duration of
the performance period regardless of changes that could result from
U.S. Census or EPA designation changes during the performance period.
As population continues to grow there will be an increased
potential for large urbanized areas to extend across State borders and/
or metropolitan planning area boundaries necessitating an increased
level of coordination of multiple entities to plan for and manage
transportation demand. The FHWA believes that State DOTs and MPOs
should collectively work together to support a common transportation
performance vision for the area. The FHWA also believes that, through
congestion management planning being done by MPOs serving a TMA as part
of the planning process,\74\ an increased level of coordination is
occurring today, especially in the largest urbanized areas across the
country. For this reason, FHWA is proposing in section 490.105(e)(8)
that a single, unified target for each of the peak hour travel time
measures and a single, unified target for the traffic congestion
measure be established for each applicable urbanized area in the
country. For each of these urbanized areas, the peak hour travel time
and traffic congestion targets would be collectively established by all
State DOTs and MPOs that have, within their respective boundaries, any
portion of the applicable roadway network in the applicable urbanized
area. Consequently, the 2-year and 4-year targets established for peak
hour travel time and traffic congestion measures would be reported
identically by each State DOT and MPO in the applicable area. Also,
under the proposed approach, any adjustments to the 4-year target would
be made for the entire applicable urbanized area; resulting in
identical reporting of the adjustment by each State DOT and MPO in the
applicable areas. For example, based on the most recent U.S. Census,
four State DOTs and four MPOs have non-Interstate NHS mileage within
their respective boundaries that are contained within or cross into the
Philadelphia Urbanized Area. Although the share of the non-Interstate
NHS network varies considerably among the eight entities, each would be
required to report the same target that would be developed through a
coordinated approach, for the Philadelphia Urbanized Area. In this area
any adjustments to the target would also need to be made and agreed
upon by all eight entities. The FHWA considered separate State DOT and
MPO targets for their share of the transportation network within an
urbanized area for the targets for the peak hour travel time and
traffic congestion measures. However, FHWA believes that performances
related to peak hour travel time and traffic congestion within each
entity's geographic boundary within an urbanized area would heavily
impact the performances of the surrounding entities in that urbanized
area. To encourage an increased level of coordination for effectively
managing transportation demand of an urbanized area for these measures,
FHWA is proposing a single target for each applicable urbanized area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State DOTs and MPOs would also be required to establish targets for
peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures for more than one
urbanized area if their respective boundaries intersect or include
multiple applicable urbanized areas. For example, based on the most
recent U.S. Census, Maryland DOT would be required to establish targets
for three applicable urbanized areas: Baltimore, Washington, DC, and
Philadelphia. As discussed above, the targets established for these
three areas would be shared by the other applicable State DOTs and
MPOs.
In section 490.105(e)(8)(vi), FHWA proposes a phase-in for the
establishment of targets for the traffic congestion measure in section
490.707. As discussed previously for the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability targets, this phase-in is being proposed to provide
sufficient time for State DOTs and MPOs to become more proficient in
managing traffic congestion performance and for the travel time data
coverage to be more complete in the NPMRDS. The proposed traffic
congestion measure requires complete data coverage to capture all
excessive delay occurrences throughout the day at a 5-minute level of
granularity. In addition, as indicated in section
[[Page 23850]]
490.711, the metric for the proposed traffic congestion measure
requires the integration of travel time and traffic volume datasets.
For these reasons, FHWA believes more time is needed before State DOTs
and MPOs can reliably establish meaningful targets for traffic
congestion.
The FHWA is aware that the NPMRDS will be lacking data on the non-
Interstate NHS roadways in the short-term (missing data is discussed in
a white paper provided on the docket). If 2-year targets were to be
established in the first performance period, the NPMRDS will be lacking
data on the non-Interstate NHS roadways. The FHWA anticipates that
enough data would be missing to make it difficult for States to
establish reasonable targets. By the time the 2-year condition/
performance are calculated, FHWA expects the NPMRDS data to have
improved to an acceptable level for this measure. Also, States would
have time to understand the impact of missing data on target
establishment. Full compliance is required starting from the second
performance period. Thus, FHWA proposes that for the first performance
period, as with the non-Interstate travel time reliability measure,
State DOTs would only be required to establish their 4-year targets for
the traffic congestion measure in the beginning of the first
performance period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial Performance Report in
2018 illustrated in Figure 1) for the traffic congestion measure. If
necessary, 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 2020 illustrated in Figure 1) as
described in section 490.105(e)(6). Although 2-year targets would not
be established in the first performance period, FHWA is proposing that
State DOTs still would report metrics annually, as required in section
490.711(f).
For the first performance period only, the baseline traffic
congestion performance would be reported by the State DOT at the
midpoint of the performance period in their 2nd State Biennial
Performance Report in 2020 (illustrated in Figure 1). This baseline
report would represent traffic congestion performance through 2019
(i.e., 2-year condition/performance).
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(e)(9) the State DOT target
establishment requirements for the proposed on-road mobile source
emission measure, identified in section 490.807. In paragraph (i) of
this section, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would establish a statewide
target for all areas within the State geographic boundaries designated
as nonattainment or maintenance for the O3, CO, or PM
(PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS.
In section 490.105(e)(9)(ii), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
establish separate statewide targets for each of the applicable
criteria pollutant and precursor (PM2.5, PM10,
CO, VOC and NOX) for which the State is designated as
nonattainment or maintenance, as described in section 490.807.
As proposed in section 490.105(e)(4)(iii) and (e)(4)(iv), the 2-
year targets for this measure would reflect the anticipated cumulative
emissions reduction to be reported for the first 2 years of a
performance period by (i.e., total emissions reduced for 2 fiscal
years) pollutant and precursor. The 4-year target would reflect
anticipated cumulative emissions reduction to be reported for the
entire performance period (i.e., total emissions reduced for 4 fiscal
years) by pollutant and precursor.
To implement the flexibility in 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that provides
State DOTs the option for establishing different targets for different
areas of the State and in consideration of the measure that FHWA is
proposing for on-road mobile source emissions, FHWA proposes in section
490.105(e)(9)(iv) that State DOTs would have the option of establishing
additional targets, beyond the statewide targets, for any number and
combination of nonattainment and maintenance areas by applicable
criteria pollutant and precursors. For instance, a State DOT could
choose to establish additional targets for a single nonattainment and
maintenance area and a single applicable criteria pollutant or
precursor, a number of areas and applicable pollutants or precursors,
or each of the areas and applicable pollutants or precursors
separately. A State DOT that has multiple nonattainment and maintenance
areas for multiple criteria pollutants could decide to establish a
target for one of the areas and for only one of the applicable
pollutants or precursors within that area. If a State DOT decides to
establish these additional targets, the requirements for these targets
are similar to those provided in section 490.105(e)(3). The additional
targets would need to be described in the State Baseline Performance
Period Report. For each additional target, State DOTs would evaluate
whether they have made progress toward achieving the target and report
on that progress in their biennial performance report in accordance
with sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
In sections 490.105(e)(9)(v) and (e)(9)(vi), FHWA proposes that the
State DOT's requirement for establishing target(s) for on-road mobile
source emission measure would be by the EPA's nonattainment and
maintenance areas designations published in the Federal Register in 40
CFR part 81 at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA. States may also use EPA's ``Green Book'' Web
site \75\ to check the status of EPA designations. States should also
check with their local FHWA division office to ensure they have a
complete list of all nonattainment and maintenance areas for the
performance period. These designations would be used for the duration
of the performance period regardless of subsequent change in
designation status during that performance period. In section
490.105(e)(9)(vii), FHWA proposes that if a State geographic boundary
does not contain any part of areas designated by the EPA as
nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable to the CMAQ Program at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA, then that State DOT is not
require to establish targets for on-road mobile source emissions
measures for that performance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although both traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emission
measures are proposed to carry out the CMAQ Program, there are some
differences in how the targets for the measures would be implemented.
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(8), the targets for the traffic
congestion measure would apply to the NHS roadway network in urbanized
areas with a population over 1 million that also contain areas
designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program where as the targets for
on-road mobile source emission measure would apply to all nonattainment
or maintenance areas for any of the criteria pollutants applicable
under the CMAQ Program as discussed in section 490.105(e)(9). The FHWA
also proposes that a single, unified target for traffic congestion
measure would be established for each applicable urbanized area in the
country; whereas target(s) for the on-road mobile source emission
measure would be bounded by State geographic boundaries and
nonattainment or maintenance areas.
[[Page 23851]]
Additionally, as discussed in section 490.105(e)(4), the performance
period for the traffic congestion measure would be on a calendar year
basis whereas the performance period for the on-road mobile source
emission measure would be on a Federal fiscal year basis. Even though
there are differences between these measures, FHWA believes both of
these measures support two goals of the CMAQ Program: To improve air
quality and relieve congestion. Both of these measures also are
consistent with the National Goals of environmental sustainability and
congestion reduction (23 U.S.C. 150(a)(3) and (a)(6)). In section
490.105(f), FHWA proposes MPO requirements for the establishment of
targets for all measures identified in section 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
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. Given these
considerations, FHWA is proposing that MPOs would be required,
depending on the measure, to establish both 2-year and 4-year targets
or only 4-year targets.
As part of the MPO-State DOT coordination in establishing State DOT
and MPO targets described in the discussion of sections 490.105(e)(2)
and 490.105(f)(2), FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1) that MPOs
establish targets with a 4-year performance period identical to the
State DOT's performance periods discussed in the Section-by-Section
Discussion for 490.101 and 490.105(e)(4). It is important to emphasize
that established MPO targets must be considered as interim conditions/
performance levels that lead toward the accomplishment of longer-term
performance expectations in the MPO's Metropolitan Transportation Plan
\76\ and relevant State DOT NHS asset management plans.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i).
\77\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1)(i) that each MPO would
establish 4-year targets for all applicable measures in section
490.105(c) no later than 180 days after the relevant State DOT
establishes its targets, described in the discussion of section
490.105(e)(1).\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 23 U.S.C.134(h)(2)(C) requires that an MPO establish
targets 180 days after the relevant State DOT establishes its
target, but does not require that the MPO establish the same number
of targets as the State. For certain measures, even where a State
DOT is establishing a 2-year and a 4-year target at the start of a
performance period, FHWA is proposing that MPOs would only need to
establish a 4-year target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1)(ii) that the MPOs with
any portion of the applicable roadway network in an urbanized area with
a population greater than 1 million would establish both 2-year and 4-
year targets for the peak hour travel time measures, as described in
section 490.105(f)(4)(i). In addition, the MPOs that have any portion
of the applicable roadway network in an urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million and contain areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance would establish both 2-year and 4-year
targets for the traffic congestion measure, as described in section
490.105(f)(4)(ii). The FHWA is proposing this approach because, as
discussed section 490.105(e)(8), 2-year and 4-year targets established
for peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures would
represent the entire urbanized area, and State DOTs and MPOs would
report identical targets for each of the applicable urbanized areas. In
addition, for the traffic congestion measure, the requirement to have
targets every 2 years is consistent with the requirement for these MPOs
to report on this target every 2 years under the performance plan
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
For the on-road mobile source emissions measure, whether an MPO
must establish 2-year and 4-year targets or would only be required to
establish a 4-year target depends on if the MPO is in an urbanized area
with a population greater than 1 million and contains areas designated
as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable to the CMAQ program. An MPO in one of these large urbanized
areas would be required to establish both 2-year and 4-year targets for
the on-road mobile source emissions measure, as provided in section
490.105(f)(5)(iii). An MPO outside of these large urbanized areas would
only be required to establish a 4-year target for the on-road mobile
source emissions measure, as required by section 490.105(f)(1)(i); it
would not be required to establish a 2-year target as provided in
section 490.105(f)(1)(ii). In proposing this approach, FHWA considered
that the MPOs in a larger urbanized area would be required to do
biennial reporting on these targets under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
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 and NHFP
targets under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23 U.S.C. 167(j). As a result,
FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1)(iii) that MPOs would not be
required to establish 2-year targets for the NHS travel time
reliability measures and freight movement on Interstate System
measures.
In the case of the first performance period, FHWA anticipates that
the State DOTs would establish targets for the measures listed in
section 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 Figures 1 and 2 in the discussion of section
490.105(e)(4). The FHWA recognizes that the previously programmed
projects may have an impact on the target an MPO establishes for the
first performance period. The MPOs should consider the impact of
previously programmed projects on future performance outcomes when
establishing their targets. As discussed in section 490.105(e)(4), FHWA
recognizes that if the final rule is effective after September 30,
2017, the due date to report State DOT targets for the first
performance period may need to be adjusted. If the rule is effective on
or after September 30, 2017, MPOs may not have the opportunity to
establish their own targets in time for State DOTs to consider those
MPO targets when submitting the 1st Baseline Performance Period Report.
If it becomes clear that the final rule will not be effective until
after September 30, 2017, FHWA will consider adjusting the due date in
the final rule or issuing implementation guidance that would provide
State DOTs a 1-year period and MPOs 180 days thereafter to establish
and report targets. 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 section 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 450.
The FHWA recognizes the burden on the MPOs to establish their own
performance targets. Consequently, as proposed, the MPOs would have the
[[Page 23852]]
flexibility to establish their targets using one of the two options.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(3) that, for most of the
measures, 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 target, or (2) committing to a quantifiable target 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 do 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.
However, these MPO target establishment options would not be
available for MPOs subject to the peak hour travel time or the traffic
congestion measures because FHWA has proposed that MPOs and the State
DOTs subject to these measures establish identical targets. Also those
MPO target establishment options would not be available for certain
MPOs \79\ for the on-road mobile source emissions measure as those MPOs
are required to commit to their targets for the entire subject area
under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ MPOs in an urbanized area with a population greater than 1
million that contain areas designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants applicable to the
CMAQ program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, FHWA is proposing that MPOs establish
targets for the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures
for applicable urbanized areas. The FHWA proposes that MPOs, with
mainline highways on the Interstate System that cross any part of an
urbanized area with a population more than 1 million within its
metropolitan planning area boundary, would establish a target for peak-
hour travel time for the Interstate System for that urbanized area.
Similarly, FHWA proposes that MPOs, with mainline highways on the non-
Interstate NHS that cross any part of an urbanized area with a
population more than 1 million within its metropolitan planning area
boundary, would establish a target for peak-hour travel time for the
non-Interstate NHS for that urbanized area.
The FHWA proposes an MPO would establish targets for the traffic
congestion measure when mainline highways on the NHS within that MPO's
metropolitan planning area boundary cross any part of an urbanized area
with a population more than 1 million, and that portion of the
metropolitan planning area boundary intersecting the urbanized area
also includes a nonattainment or maintenance area for any one of the
criteria pollutants, as specified in section 490.703. If an MPO's
metropolitan planning area boundary overlaps with an urbanized area
where a traffic congestion target is required but that MPO is not
required to establish the traffic congestion target, then the MPO
should coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) and MPO(s) in the target
selection process for the traffic congestion measure. The FHWA is
proposing in section 490.105(f)(4) that MPOs would be subject to the
same requirements as State DOTs for the establishment of a single peak
hour travel time target and a single traffic congestion target. This
would require MPOs to establish both 2-year and 4-year targets that
would be identical to the targets reported by other State DOTs and MPOs
that share in roadway network for the applicable urbanized area. The
proposed language is similar to the proposal for State DOT targets for
these measures in section 490.105(e)(8). It is possible that an MPO
could be required to establish more than 1 peak hour travel time or
traffic congestion target if the boundary of the respective
metropolitan planning area includes applicable roadways that are in
multiple, separate applicable urbanized areas. Based on the data
available \80\ at this time, FHWA has prepared a list \81\ of the State
DOTs and MPOs which might be affected by proposed peak hour travel time
and traffic congestion measures and included this list in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA HEPGIS (Accessed on
5/1/2015): https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/ViewMap.aspx?map=MPO+Boundaries|MPO+Boundary#. The
nonattainment/maintenance status of the MPOs areas was verified on
5/1/2015 based on EPA's Green Book (updated on April 14, 2015):
https://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_download.html. Population
Data for Urbanized Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html.
\81\ Documents ``Peak Hour Travel Time Measure States and
MPOs.pdf'' and ``CMAQ Measure States and MPOs.pdf'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 490.105(f)(4)(iv), FHWA proposes the same requirements
be applied to MPOs for the traffic congestion target as required for
State DOTs in sections 490.105(e)(8)(vi)(A) and (e)(8)(vi)(B), which
would require only 4-year targets to be established for the first
performance period. This will provide additional time needed for MPOs
to become more proficient in the management of traffic congestion and
for travel time data coverage to be more complete within the NPMRDS.
Please see discussion for section 490.105(e)(8)(vi) for more details.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(5) MPO target establishment
requirements for the proposed on-road mobile source emission measure,
identified in section 490.807. The proposed language is similar to the
proposal for State DOT targets for these measures in 490.105(e)(9). In
section 490.105(f)(5)(i), FHWA proposes that MPOs would establish
targets for each applicable criteria pollutant (and precursor
(PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC and NOX) for
which the area is designated as nonattainment or maintenance under the
NAAQS.
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(9), the MPOs would adhere to the
Federal fiscal year based performance periods for the on-road mobile
source emissions targets. In paragraph (ii) of this section, FHWA
proposes that the MPOs would establish targets as discussed in section
490.105(e)(9)(iii).
In section 490.105(f)(5)(iii), FHWA proposes that if any part of
the nonattainment or maintenance area within a metropolitan planning
area for any one of the applicable criteria pollutants is located
within the boundary of an urbanized area with a population more than 1
million in population, then that MPO would establish both 2-year and 4-
year targets for its metropolitan planning area.
In section 490.105(f)(5)(iv), FHWA proposes that a nonattainment or
maintenance area within a metropolitan planning area for any one of the
applicable criteria pollutants is not located within the boundary of an
urbanized area with a population more than 1 million in population,
then that MPO would not be required to establish a 2-year target and
would only establish both 4-year targets for its metropolitan planning
area as required in section 490.105(f)(3).
In section 490.105(f)(5)(v) and (f)(5)(vi), FHWA proposes the same
requirements be applied to MPOs for the on-road mobile source emission
target as required for State DOTs in sections 490.105(e)(9)(v) and
(e)(9)(vi). In section 490.105(f)(5)(vii), FHWA proposes language for
the MPOs that is similar to
[[Page 23853]]
the State DOT provision in section 490.105(e)(9)(vii).
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(9), both traffic congestion and
on-road mobile source emission measures are proposed to carry out the
CMAQ Program, but there are some differences in how the targets for the
measures are to be implemented. Please refer to the discussion for
section 490.105(e)(9) for a summary of differences.
As stated in the section 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
section 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, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT
adjusts a target, as allowed under the proposed sections 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 section 490.105(f)(3). In that
case, the adjusted State target could directly impact an MPO's
investment decisionmaking. Specifically, FHWA proposes in section
490.105(f)(7) that if a State DOT adjusts its 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 section 490.105(f)(3), 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 its own
quantifiable 4-year target for the metropolitan planning area. Since a
single, unified peak hour travel time target and a single, unified
traffic congestion target would be established for each applicable
urbanized area as discussed in section 490.105(e)(8), FHWA expects that
if either of these 4-year targets need adjustment, all involved MPO(s)
and State DOT(s) would collectively adjust target(s) in a manner that
is documented and mutually agreed upon by all State DOTs and MPOs.
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 section 490.105(f)(8) that MPOs may
adjust their established 4-year target in a manner that is consistent
with the process MPOs and State DOTs agreed upon. 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 section 490.105(f), 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 section
490.107(c). The FHWA further proposes in 490.105(f)(8) 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. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to work with multiple
MPOs to mutually 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 Section 490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets
Proposed reporting requirements for measures identified in section
490.207(a) are discussed in section 490.213 of the first performance
management NPRM; and performance target reporting requirements specific
to pavement condition measures in sections 490.307(a)(1) through (c)(4)
and bridge condition measures in sections 490.407(c)(1) and (c)(2) are
included in the second performance management NPRM. The discussions
specific to those measures will not be repeated in this NPRM. Please
see the docket for proposed Subpart A in its entirety for additional
information.
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.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107 for State DOT performance
reporting to be used:
In the determination of significant progress toward
achieving NHPP and NHFP 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 section 490.107, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that
State DOTs and MPOs would follow to report targets for all measures
identified in section 490.105(c), which include the proposed measures
in both this performance management NPRM and the second performance
management NPRM. In section 490.107(a), FHWA proposes that all
performance targets described in section 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 section 490.213. In the first performance measure rulemaking,
published as a final rule on March 15, 2016, FHWA requires a 1 calendar
year period as the basis for measurement, target establishment, and
reporting. As discussed in section 490.101 of that Rule, a 1-year
period is required 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 section 490.107(a)(3). The FHWA intends
to provide additional guidance regarding the template which will
include fields to capture all of the information that
[[Page 23854]]
would be required to be reported under this rulemaking.
The FHWA anticipates the final rule for the pavement and bridge
condition performance measures (proposed in the second performance
management NPRM) to be effective no later than October 1, 2016, and
anticipates that the final rule for this proposal to be effective no
later than October 1, 2017. However, 23 U.S.C. 150(e) requires State
DOTs to submit reports on performance targets and progress in achieving
established targets to FHWA not later than October 1, 2016. To meet the
statutory deadlines for the first State DOT performance report due in
2016, FHWA proposes the minimum reporting requirements that would be
followed by State DOTs in section 490.107(a)(4). The FHWA proposes that
State DOTs would submit an Initial State Performance Report to FHWA by
October 1, 2016. In that report, the State DOTs shall include: (1) The
condition/performance of the NHS in the State derived only from the
available data in HPMS and NBI; (2) the effectiveness of the investment
strategy document in the State asset management plan for the NHS; (3)
progress toward targets the State DOT would be required to establish,
which may only be a description of how State DOTs would coordinate with
relevant MPOs and other agencies in target selection for the targets to
be reported in the first State Biennial Performance Report in 2018; and
(4) the ways in which the State is addressing congestion at freight
bottlenecks.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1), FHWA proposes in section
490.107(a)(5) that State DOTs would establish targets within 1 year of
the effective date of applicable rule and the State DOTs would report
the initial targets to FHWA. In this section, FHWA proposes that State
DOTs submit their 2-year and 4-year targets for the first performance
period to FHWA either within 30 days of target establishment by
amending the Initial State Performance Report or on the due date of the
first Baseline Performance Report, whichever comes first. The related
NPRMs are being published on individual schedules. This creates the
possibility that State DOTs will be required to establish targets for
some performance measures, such as those published in the second
performance management NPRM, well before the first Baseline Performance
Report is due in October 2018. This proposal ensures timely reporting
of targets, and allows FHWA to begin to develop a national story around
targets sooner.
For consistent State DOT and FHWA reporting, FHWA proposes a 4-year
performance period in section 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 section 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 for each measure (see section
490.103). To ensure consistency in reporting, FHWA proposes that the
reported baseline condition/performance be derived from the latest data
collected through the beginning date of a performance period, the
reported actual 2-year condition/performance be derived from the latest
data collected through the midpoint of a performance period, and the
reported actual 4-year condition/performance be derived from the latest
data collected through the end date of a performance period. This is
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 in the discussion for section
490.105(e)(4).
The FHWA proposes in section 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. Figures 3-5 illustrate the proposed reporting timelines
for the three types of Biennial Performance Reports. The proposed
requirements identify three distinct biennial performance 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
section 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.
[[Page 23855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.002
The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Baseline Performance
Period Report in section 490.107(b)(1), where the State DOTs would be
required to submit a Baseline Performance Period Report no later than
October 1st of the first year of a performance period. The FHWA is
proposing that the first performance period would begin on January 1,
2018, for the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(7) and would begin on October 1, 2017, for emission measure
identified in section 490.105(c)(8). Although the performance periods
may be different, the reporting for all the measures in 490.105(c)
would follow the same schedule. State DOTs would submit their Initial
State Performance Report no later than October 1, 2018. Subsequent
Baseline Performance Period Reports would be due no later than October
1st every 4 years thereafter.
The required contents for the Baseline Performance Period Report
are discussed in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii). The FHWA is proposing that
the Baseline Performance Period Report would be the official source of
the non-
[[Page 23856]]
safety targets established by the State DOT. To document the
established targets, FHWA proposes in section 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 section 490.105(c) for the current
performance period. Additionally, if a State DOT elects to establish
additional targets as described in sections 490.105(e)(3) and
490.105(e)(9)(iv), 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 along with the State DOT's
discussion of the basis for each target selection. 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 used by FHWA in carrying out
the requirements of 23 CFR 490, as they are the targets established by
the State DOT to meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
The FHWA proposes in section 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 beginning date of a performance period. Because the first
performance period for the measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(7) is proposed to begin on January 1, 2018, the baseline condition/
performance for this performance period would be the most recent
condition/performance that represents actual condition/performance
through December 31, 2017. As the first performance period for the on-
road mobile source emissions measure in section 490.105(c)(8) is
proposed to begin on October 1, 2017, State DOTs would establish
baseline performance of a 4-year cumulative emissions reduction
resulting from CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year
2017 (ending September 30, 2017) in the CMAQ Public Access System, as
described in section 490.809. The CMAQ Public Access System contains 20
years of past data. Since all past data in the CMAQ Public Access
System may not have the necessary values for the proposed measure, FHWA
believes that State DOTs should revisit the data for CMAQ projects from
fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2017 to improve baseline
performance establishment which would ultimately help the State DOTs in
their target establishment. Should a State DOT elect to establish
additional targets, as described in sections 490.105(e)(3) and
490.105(e)(9)(iv), the State DOT would report baseline condition/
performance that represent the applicable areas in addition to the
statewide baseline condition/performance. As an example, for the
Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times
measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)), would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel Times (sections 490.503(a)(1) and 490.513(b)) expressed
in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a baseline
condition/performance for this measure would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel Times expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a
hypothetical example, a baseline condition/performance would be 37.7
percent for the proposed measure Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs
would be required to also include a discussion in the Baseline
Performance Period Report, 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 section 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 and establish any
additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. Similarly, in
section 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. Additionally, State DOTs would be required to report the
latest Decennial population data for all urbanized areas in accordance
with HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA would use this information in
determining measure applicability and 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.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F) that, in each
Baseline Performance Period Report, State DOTs would include
discussions on the ways in which State DOTs are addressing congestion
at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the National
Freight Strategic Plan. This content is required as part of the report
under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(4). To meet this requirement for State DOTs to
address congestion at freight bottlenecks within the State, FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would describe their activities to improve
freight bottlenecks. For the purpose of this report only, freight
bottlenecks would be defined as the segments of the Interstate System
not meeting thresholds for freight reliability and congestion (section
490.613) and any other locations the State wishes to identify as
bottlenecks based on its own freight plans or related documents if
applicable. Further, the State DOT should reference its activities in
other freight planning and programs that focus on improving freight
bottlenecks, including: Comprehensive freight improvement efforts of
Statewide Freight Planning or MPO freight plans; the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and TIP; regional or corridor
level efforts; other related planning efforts; and operational and
capital activities targeted to improve freight movement on the
Interstate. The FHWA understands the multifaceted and multimodal nature
of a freight bottleneck and that many State DOTs will likely define
bottlenecks beyond the definition for this Part. The FHWA believes that
due to the diversity in characteristics of bottlenecks and a lack of a
universal definition or approach to measurement, this reporting on
freight bottlenecks should be focused at a minimum on the performance
measures, as proposed in section 490.607 and how those measures and the
State DOT's associated targets might be impacted by other freight
efforts currently underway, such as planning or programming. The FHWA
encourages State DOTs to consider multimodal freight performance in
transportation planning and programming efforts taking place beyond
this rule. Upon development of the National Strategic Freight Plan, a
State DOT shall specifically include its activities for addressing
freight bottlenecks as part of that Plan in this report. The FHWA is
seeking comment on this approach.
[[Page 23857]]
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(G) that State DOTs,
where applicable, would be required to describe the boundaries of EPA's
designation of nonattainment or maintenance areas under the NAAQS in 40
CFR part 81 at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA. Please refer to the discussion in section
490.103(c) for more information.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3), MPOs serving a TMA with a
population over 1 million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas for O3, CO or PM NAAQS are required to submit CMAQ
Performance Plan, required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a part in the
State Biennial Performance Report. In section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H), the
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would report relevant MPOs' CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.003
[[Page 23858]]
The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report in section 490.107(b)(2). In section 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 1st of the
third year of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the
first performance period would begin on January 1, 2018, for the
measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) and would
begin on October 1, 2017, for the emission measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8). Although the performance periods may be
different, the reporting for all the measures in section 490.105(c)
would follow the same schedule. State DOTs would submit their first Mid
Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1, 2020, and
subsequent Mid Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no
later than October 1st every 4 years thereafter.
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents
for the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. In section
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 4, 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 on January 1, 2018,
for the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7), 2-
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
defined in section 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,
Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times
measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)), would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel Times (sections 490.503(a)(1) and 490.513(b)) expressed
in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for this
measure would be a percentage of directional mainline highways on the
Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times expressed in one
tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, a 2-year target for that
measure would be 39.5 percent. The 2-year condition/performance would
be 39.2 percent. For the on-road mobile emissions measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8), 2-year condition/performance for this
performance period would be the estimated cumulative emissions
reduction resulting from CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2018 through
fiscal year 2019 in the CMAQ Public Access System, as described in
section 490.809.
The FHWA proposes in section 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 2020, a State would compare the actual
condition/performance through 2019 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 to determine significant progress, as described in section
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, for the Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)),
a hypothetical 2-year target for this measure is 39.5 percent (in
section 490.105(e)). If 2-year condition/performance for this measure
is 39.2 percent as discussed above, the State DOT would discuss why
this target was not achieved in its Mid Performance Period Progress
Report.
The FHWA proposes in sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) that, in
each Mid Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include
discussions on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented
in the State asset management plan for the NHS and the ways in which
State DOTs are addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks, including
those identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan, as described
in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F). 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 and the development of a final
National Freight Strategic Plan. The FHWA intends to issue further
guidance if the timing of these two plans would impact a State DOT's
ability to comply with the requirements proposed in sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D).
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(6), FHWA recognizes the
challenges that State DOTs may face in target establishment and
proposes to allow State DOTs to adjust their 4-year targets. The FHWA
is proposing in section 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
2018, the State DOT would only be able to adjust the 4-year target in
its Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2020. 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. The FHWA intends to publish the State DOT established targets on
a publicly available Web site with the initial target basis discussion.
Any targets adjusted at the mid-point will also be reflected on the
site.
The FAST Act introduced 23 U.S.C. 167(j), which requires FHWA to
determine if a State has met or made significant progress toward
meeting the performance targets related to freight movement. This was
not part of MAP-21. To meet the requirements of the FAST Act, FHWA has
incorporated language throughout this NPRM requiring the targets
established for the measures in section 490.105(c)(6) to be included in
the significant progress process. The FHWA has called these the NHFP
targets. Section
[[Page 23859]]
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) is the first regulatory reference to the NHFP.
In section 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 sections 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and the NHFP measures in
section 490.105(c)(6). Additionally, State DOTs would provide
information to discuss how the actual 2-year condition/performance
levels compare to targets. Although this discussion would not be used
to determine significant progress for the applicable measures, 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 and NHFP. For example, the State DOT may use this discussion to
explain how it 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 NHFP, and how the
State DOT would deliver a program to make significant progress for 4-
year targets for the NHPP and NHFP.
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were
outside of its control that impacted its ability to make significant
progress for the 2-year targets for the NHPP or NHFP. The FHWA would
use this discussion when considering extenuating circumstances
discussed in section 490.109(e)(4).
In section 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 any NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial FHWA
determination, then the State DOT would include a description of the
actions it will undertake to achieve those targets as required,
respectively, under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) or 167(j).
For example, for the NHPP or the NHFP, if FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant progress (as provided in section
490.109(e)(2)) for either the 2-year or 4-year significant progress
determination, then the State DOT would include a description of the
actions it would undertake to achieve its conditions/performance with
respect to all related measures (section 490.109(f)) in its next
Biennial Progress Report. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has
achieved the target or made significant progress, then the State DOT
does not need to include such description in the next Biennial Progress
Report.
For the NHPP targets, the FAST Act amended the language in MAP-21,
and changed the determination period from being based on looking back
over ``two consecutive determinations'' (a 4-year period) to a single
biennial FHWA determination which looks back over a 2-year period. This
is a change from the language presented in the second NPRM, but it is
required to be consistent with the amended statute.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3), MPOs serving a TMA with a
population over 1 million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas for O3, CO, or PM NAAQS are required to submit CMAQ
Performance Plan, required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a part in the
State Biennial Performance Report. In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(I),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would report relevant MPOs' CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
[[Page 23860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.004
The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Full Performance Period
Progress Report in section 490.107(b)(3). In section 490.107(b)(3)(i),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs be required to submit a Full Performance
Period Progress Report no later than October 1st 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, 2018, for
the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) and
would begin on October 1, 2017, for emission measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8). Although the performance periods may be
different, the reporting for all the measures in section 490.105(c)
would follow the same schedule. State DOTs would submit their first
Full Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1, 2022,
and subsequent Full Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no
later than October 1st every 4 years thereafter.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents
for Full Performance Period Progress Report.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs
would be required to report 4-year condition/
[[Page 23861]]
performance in each Full Performance Period Progress Report. As
exhibited in Figure 5, FHWA proposes that the 4-year condition/
performance be reported 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, 2018, for the measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) and on October 1, 2017, for the
measure identified in section 490.105(c)(8), the 4-year condition/
performance for this performance period would be the most recent
conditions/performance that represents actual conditions/performance
through December 31, 2021 (illustrated in Figure 5). For the on-road
mobile emissions measure identified in section 490.105(c)(8), 4-year
condition/performance for this performance period would be the 4-year
cumulative emissions reduction resulting from CMAQ projects from fiscal
year 2018 through fiscal year 2021 in the CMAQ Public Access System, as
described in section 490.809. As indicated in Figure 5, the reported 4-
year condition/performance in a Full Performance Period Progress Report
would be the baseline condition/performance for next performance period
for all measures.
As an example, for the Percent of the Interstate System providing
for Reliable Travel Times measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)), an
hypothetical 4-year target for this measure is 38.5 percent (in section
490.105(e)). If 4-year condition/performance for this measure is 37.7
percent as discussed above, the State DOT would discuss why this target
was not achieved in their Full Performance Period Progress Report.
The FHWA proposes in section 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 2022, a State DOT would compare
the actual condition/performance through the end of the performance
period 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.
As discussed in sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) for the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report, FHWA also proposes in sections
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) that in each Full Performance Period
Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussions on the
effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in their State
asset management plans for the NHS and the ways in which State DOTs are
addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those
identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan, as described in
section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F). Please refer to the discussion of
sections 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F), 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (ii)(D) for
more information.
In section 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 have been established for the NHPP measures
specified in sections 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and the NHFP
measures specified in section 490.105(c)(6). Additionally, State DOTs
would provide information to discuss how the actual 4-year condition/
performance levels compare with the applicable NHPP or NHFP targets.
Although this discussion would not be used in the determination of
significant progress for the applicable measures, 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 and NHFP. For
example, the State DOT may use this discussion to explain how it
effectively and efficiently delivered a program designed to achieve
targets and how this may have resulted in actual condition/performance
improvements for the NHPP and NHFP.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were
outside of its control that impacted its ability to make significant
progress for the NHPP or NHFP 4-year targets. This discussion would be
used by FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration
of extenuating circumstances discussed in section 490.109(e)(4).
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA proposes that if FHWA
determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward
the achievement of any NHPP or NHFP targets, then the State DOT would
include a description of the actions it would undertake to achieve
conditions/performances with respect to all related NHPP or NHFP
measures within the measure group, as described in section 490.109(f).
For example, for the NHPP or NHFP, if FHWA determines that a State
DOT has not made significant progress at either the 2-year or 4-year
significant progress determination, then the State DOT would include a
description of the actions it would undertake to achieve its targets
with respect to all related measures in the next Biennial Progress
Report. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has achieved or made
significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to include this
description in the next Biennial Progress Report.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3), MPOs serving a TMA with a
population over one million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas for O3, CO, or PM NAAQS are required to submit CMAQ
Performance Plan, required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a part in the
State Biennial Performance Report. In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(H),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would report relevant MPOs' CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
The FHWA proposes, in section 490.107(c), that MPOs document the
manner in which they report their established targets. The MPOs would
report their established targets to the relevant State DOTs in a manner
that is agreed upon by both parties and documented. The FHWA proposes
in section 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. In section
490.107(c)(2), 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. In sections
490.105(e)(3) and 490.105(d)(3), FHWA discusses how an urbanized area
boundary or NHS limit changes during a performance period may lead to
changes in the measures reported for an area/network and could impact
how an established target relates to actual measured performance. The
FHWA anticipates that changes in the MPA boundary could also impact how
an established target relates to actual measured performance. Thus,
FHWA
[[Page 23862]]
seeks comment on whether the description of the MPA in place when
establishing targets should be included in the system performance
report and apply to the entire performance period.
As required in 23 U.S.C. 149(l), each MPO serving a TMA with a
population over 1 million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas must develop a performance plan, updated biennially, to report
baseline levels and the progress toward achievement of the targets for
the CMAQ traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions
measures. The FHWA proposes that the CMAQ performance plan is not
required when the MPO does not serve a TMA with a population over 1
million; the MPO is attainment for O3, CO and PM NAAQS; or
the MPO's nonattainment or maintenance area for O3, CO, or
PM NAAQS is outside the urbanized area boundary of the TMA with a
population over one million. Based on the data available,\82\ FHWA has
prepared a list \83\ of the MPOs who might be subject to the CMAQ
performance plan and included this list in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA HEPGIS (Accessed on
5/1/2015): https://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/ViewMap.aspx?map=MPO+Boundaries|MPO+Boundary#. The
nonattainment/maintenance status of the MPOs areas was verified on
5/1/2015 based on EPA's Green Book (updated on April 14, 2015):
https://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_download.html. Population
Data for Urbanized Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html.
\83\ Document ``CMAQ Measure States and MPOs.pdf'' in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To encourage close coordination of the State DOT and MPOs in
implementing the performance requirements and to streamline the
reporting requirements, FHWA proposes in section 490.107(c)(3) that the
MPOs meet the reporting requirements of the CMAQ performance plan in 23
U.S.C. 149(l) if the MPO's CMAQ performance plan is submitted as part
of the State Biennial Performance Report as required under section
490.107(b). The CMAQ performance plan must be clearly documented in a
separate section, as an attachment, of the State Biennial Performance
Report. The FHWA is soliciting comments on other ways that will help
further streamline the reporting requirements. Some options may
include:
1. The MPOs could submit their CMAQ performance plans to FHWA
separately from the State Biennial Performance Report as discussed in
section 490.107(b). In this case, the State DOTs and the MPOs should
coordinate to ensure that the MPOs' data are reflected in the State
report in a consistent manner.
2. The MPOs could submit their performance information to the State
DOTs to be included in the State Biennial Performance Report. In this
case, the State DOTs would be responsible to ensure the CMAQ
performance plan requirements are met.
The FHWA requests comments on other possible options that provide a
streamlined approach to meet the performance requirements as discussed
above.
The FHWA proposes that, similar to the State DOT Biennial
Performance Reports, an MPO would have three distinct performance
reports (Baseline Performance Period, Mid Performance Period Progress,
and Full Performance Period Progress). These distinct reports would
contain different content, but would align with target establishment
and other State DOT performance reporting requirements.
As part of the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the State DOT's
Baseline Performance Period Report, the MPO would include baseline
condition/performance for each applicable measure. This could result in
several different baseline condition/performances: One for each
urbanized area's traffic congestion measure and up to five \84\ for the
on-road mobile source emission measure. The FHWA intends that
``baseline level,'' as used in 23 U.S.C. 149(l), has the same meaning
as ``baseline condition/performance'' as used in this section.
Interpreting these phrases as having the same meaning will help ensure
that State DOTs and MPOs are reporting consistent baseline condition/
performance information. For the traffic congestion measure, the
baseline condition/performance would be the same as that reported by
the State DOT(s) under section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Measure for each of the applicable criteria pollutants and
precursors (VOC, NOX, CO, PM2.5 and/or
PM10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report would also include the 2-year and 4-year targets for
these measures for the performance period. The establishment of targets
is required in section 490.105(f). An MPO would use the same geographic
area for both reporting its baseline condition/performance and
establishing targets. For the traffic congestion measure, as described
in section 490.105(f)(5), 2-year and 4-year targets would be identical
to the targets reported by the relevant State DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). As required by 23 U.S.C. 149(l)(1)(C), the report
would describe projects identified for CMAQ funding and how such
projects would contribute to achieving the performance targets for the
traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions measures.
The FHWA proposes that the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the
State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report would include the
actual 2-year condition/performance derived from the latest measured
condition/performance through the midpoint of the performance period
for an MPO-reported traffic congestion target and the estimated
cumulative emissions reduction resulting from CMAQ projects in the CMAQ
Public Access System for each MPO-reported on-road mobile source
emissions target. For the traffic congestion measure, the actual 2-year
condition/performance would be identical to the 2-year condition/
performance reported by the relevant State DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). For the on-road mobile source emissions measure,
an MPO should use the same process the State DOT uses for determining
the actual condition/performance, which is described in relation to
section 490.107(b)(2)(ii). As required by 23 U.S.C. 149(l)(2), MPOs
would assess the progress of the projects identified in the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the Baseline Performance Period Report
toward achieving the 2-year targets for traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions measures. When doing this assessment, the MPO
would compare the actual 2-year condition/performance with the 2-year
target and document any reasons for differences between these two
values.
If an MPO adjusts its 4-year target, the MPO would report that
adjusted target, as provided in section 490.105(f)(7) and (f)(8). In
addition, an MPO would update its description of projects identified
for CMAQ funding and how those updates would contribute to achieving
the performance targets for these measures. If an MPO has not adjusted
its targets or does not have any changes to its description of
projects, it may comply with this proposed requirement by making a
statement to that effect.
The FHWA proposes the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the
State DOT's Full Performance Period Progress Report would include the
actual 4-year condition/performance derived from the latest measured
condition/performance through the end of the performance period for
each MPO-reported traffic congestion and estimated cumulative emissions
reductions resulting from CMAQ projects in the CMAQ Public Access
System for each MPO reported on-road
[[Page 23863]]
mobile source emissions target. For the traffic congestion measure, the
actual 4-year condition/performance would be identical to the 4-year
condition/performance reported by the relevant State DOT(s) under
section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A). For the on-road mobile source emissions
measure, an MPO should use the same process used by the State DOT for
determining the actual 4-year condition/performance, which is described
in relation to section 490.107(b)(3)(ii). As required by 23 U.S.C.
149(l)(2), MPOs would assess the progress of the projects identified in
the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the Baseline Performance
Period Report and any updates to that description identified in the
CMAQ performance plan submitted with the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report toward achieving the 4-year targets for these measures.
When doing this assessment, the MPO would compare the actual 4-year
condition/performance with the 4-year target and document any reasons
for differences between these two values.
The FHWA has proposed that MPOs submit three distinct CMAQ
performance plans with the State DOT's biennial performance reports
(Baseline Performance Period, Mid Performance Period Progress, and Full
Performance Period Progress). Because these plans would be required for
consecutive 4-year performance periods, the information provided in the
CMAQ performance plan submitted with the State DOT's Full Performance
Period Report would be provided at the same time and may include some
of the same information as the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the
State DOT's Baseline Performance Period Report for the next performance
period. As FHWA expects that State DOTs would provide all of the
required baseline and progress reporting information at one time, and
the MPO CMAQ performance plan would be submitted in a similar fashion.
The proposed regulations identify three distinct plans to clarify the
purpose and timing of information that would be required to be reported
every 2 years. The FHWA intends to issue guidance to assist MPOs in
developing and submitting these biennial plans.
The FHWA also seeks comments on other issues or problems State DOTs
and MPOs might anticipate in meeting the reporting requirements of 23
U.S.C. 149(l) and 150(e) for the performance measures related to the
CMAQ program and ideas for resolving any anticipated issues or
problems.
Discussion of Section 490.109 Assessing Significant Progress Toward
Achieving the Performance Targets for the National Highway Performance
Program and National Highway Freight Program
Significant progress determinations for measures identified in
section 490.207(a) are discussed in section 490.211 of the first
performance measure rulemaking, published as a final rule March 15,
2016; and significant progress determination specific to pavement
condition measures in sections 490.307(a)(1) through (c)(4) and bridge
condition measures in sections 490.407(c)(1) and (c)(2) are included in
the second performance measure NPRM. The discussions specific to these
measures will not be repeated in this NPRM. Please see the docket for
Subpart A in its entirety for additional information.
In section 490.109, FHWA proposes the method by which FHWA would
determine if a State DOT has achieved or is making significant progress
toward its performance targets in the NHPP, as required by 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7), and NHFP, as required 23 U.S.C. 167(j). This determination
would involve the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(5), which include the proposed measures in both this performance
management NPRM and the second performance management NPRM, and section
490.105(c)(6). 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 (RIN
2125-AF52) for discussion on the review of MPO performance progress.
The FHWA recognizes that there may be factors outside of a State
DOT's control that could impact its ability to achieve a target. The
FHWA considered these factors in its evaluation of different approaches
to implement this provision. A number 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 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 \85\ raised a number
of concerns regarding progress assessment, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 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 (targets
for the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5))
and each NHFP (targets for the measures identified in section
490.105(c)(6)), 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 the actual condition/
[[Page 23864]]
performance is better than the State DOT identified baseline of
condition/performance. The FHWA believes that any improvement over the
baseline, which represents a 0.1 percent improvement, should be viewed
as significant progress considering the fiscal challenges and financial
uncertainties many State DOTs are faced with today. Although a change
of 0.1 percent may appear insignificant, this degree of improvement to
a highway network is difficult to achieve. In many State DOTs this
level of change would require improvements to hundreds, if not
thousands, of lane-miles of highway network. The FHWA reviewed the
extent to which State DOTs have been able to actually change system
conditions/performance of their highway networks in recent years to
validate this view of significant progress. This review supports FHWA's
belief that any improvement should be considered significant, as many
State DOTs have seen minimal or no improvements in the condition/
performance of their highway 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, through a transparent and public
process, would want to establish or adjust targets that strive to
improve the overall performance of the NHS and freight movement. For
this reason, FHWA did not want to propose 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
uncertainties 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 condition/performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate
System NHS, and freight movement.
The FHWA is proposing a three-step process to determine if a State
DOT has made significant progress toward the achievement of its NHPP
and NHFP targets. The FHWA would use this process to make a significant
progress determination for the NHPP and NHFP each time the State DOT
submits its Mid Performance Period Progress Report and its Full
Performance Period Progress Report. This process is summarized below
and discussed in more detail for each of the proposed regulations.
Step 1: Reporting Progress in the Biennial Performance
Reports--The State DOT would evaluate and report the progress it has
made both toward the achievement of each individual target and for all
related targets collectively established for the NHPP and NHFP measures
(measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through(c)(5) and
490.105(c)(6)). This evaluation would be documented in the discussion
of progress achieved since the most recent report. The State DOT would
document in its Biennial Performance Reports any extenuating
circumstances outside its control that may have impacted its ability to
achieve progress on any of the targets.
Step 2: Consideration of Extenuating Circumstances--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 in the progress
assessment. A State DOT would provide any additional information to
FHWA, upon request, if the report is incomplete.
Step 3: Evaluation of Actual Condition/Performance--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 sections 490.105(c)(1) and
(c)(2);
[cir] Data contained in the NBI for targets established for bridge
condition measures, as specified in section 490.105(c)(3);
[cir] Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for
system performance measures, as specified in sections 490.105(c)(4) and
(c)(5);
[cir] Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for
Freight performance measures, as specified in sections 490.105(c)(6);
[cir] Data to define the urbanized area boundary and NHS limits as
documented in the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report; and
[cir] Population data, as defined by the most recent U.S. Decennial
Census that was available when targets were first reported by the State
DOT in their Baseline Performance Period Report.
The FHWA would use these biennial determinations to assess if the
State DOT is in compliance with the NHPP \86\ and NHFP \87\ performance
achievement provisions. For the NHPP and NHFP, the State DOTs are
required to achieve or make significant progress toward their targets
every biennial reporting period (every 2 years), and are to take
additional reporting actions if FHWA determines significant progress is
not made. The FHWA plans to issue guidance, following the publication
of the Final Rule, establishing when the determination notification to
the State DOTs will be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
\87\ 23 U.S.C. 167(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the NHPP, the requirement for State DOTs to take the additional
reporting actions would be based on each FHWA biennial determination.
This is a change from the second NPRM, which proposed that the
requirement for a State DOT to take the additional reporting actions
would be based on two consecutive FHWA biennial determinations. As
discussed in previous sections, the enactment of FAST Act introduced
the significant progress determination requirements for the NHFP and
removed the requirement that two consecutive reports (4 year period) be
used in determining if a State DOT would be required to take additional
reporting actions when the State DOT has made significant progress
toward its NHPP targets. Thus, in this NPRM, the language has been
changed to reflect the statutory language in FAST Act. The FHWA
proposes, in this NPRM, that FHWA would determine whether or not a
State DOT has achieved or make significant progress toward its NHPP and
NHFP targets every biennial reporting period, and the determination on
whether or not a State DOT would take additional reporting actions
based on each of FHWA biennial determination.
In section 490.109(a), FHWA proposes that it would determine
whether a State DOT has achieved or has made significant progress
toward achieving each of the State DOT's targets for each of the NHPP
and NHFP measures separately.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.109(b) that FHWA would determine
whether a State DOT has or has not made significant progress for NHPP
and NHFP targets at the midpoint and the end of each performance
period.
In section 490.109(c), FHWA proposes that FHWA would determine
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's NHPP and
NHFP targets after the State 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 section 490.107(b), would follow the proposed
schedule illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. Following this proposed
frequency, the FHWA would
[[Page 23865]]
make a significant progress determination for the NHPP and NHFP and
assess compliance with the NHPP and NHFP performance achievement
provisions every 2 years.
The FAST Act introduced 23 U.S.C. 167(j), which says ``If the
Administrator determines that a State has not met or made significant
progress toward meeting the performance targets related to freight
movement of the State established under section 150(d) by the date that
is 2 years after the date of the establishment of the performance
targets, the State shall include in the next report submitted under
section 150(e) a description of the actions the State will undertake to
achieve the targets, including . . .'' The FHWA interprets the 2-year
period referenced in 23 U.S.C. 167(j) as 2 years after the start of the
performance period, which is consistent with 150(e) reporting
requirements and the reporting regulations of this NPRM. This 2 year
period is the period of time the State DOT has to establish targets,
collect data, and provide information to FHWA. This interpretation
allows FHWA to determine if a State DOT has made significant progress
on its 2-year targets following the submittal of its Mid Performance
Period Progress Report, and on its 4-year targets following the
submittal of its Full Performance Period Progress Report.
The FHWA would notify all State DOTs within a reasonable time of
the final determination and would advise on any subsequent need to
address progress achievement in their next biennial reports (see
450.109(f)). The data reported to FHWA by the States would be available
to the public and would be used to communicate a national performance
story. The FHWA is developing a public Web site to share performance
related information. This information would provide for greater
transparency for FHWA programs.
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 their NHPP and NHFP 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 making its NHPP and NHFP significant progress
determinations. Thus, in section 490.109(d), FHWA proposes to use
specific data sources that could be accessed by State DOTs and others
if they chose to replicate FHWA's determinations. The data in these
sources, specifically the HPMS, would be provided by State DOTs as
proposed in Subparts E-F. To ensure a repeatable process, in section
490.109(d), FHWA is proposing to establish a specific date (August 15)
to extract data from the HPMS for the measures proposed in this NPRM,
as the HPMS is often updated. This ``extraction'' date is considered
the earliest time data can be available in a national data source. This
proposed ``extraction'' date considers the time State DOTs typically
need to submit the data to HPMS, to process raw data, and to address
missing or incorrect data that may be identified as a result of quality
assessments conducted by the State DOT and/or FHWA. The proposed
``extraction'' date is necessary for FHWA to make significant progress
determinations in a timely manner. The FHWA is proposing to extract
metric data from the HPMS on August 15 to determine the actual
performance of Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the
Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Time measures, and Freight measures,
as specified in sections 490.105(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6). This date
is needed to provide FHWA with sufficient time to make a determination
of significant progress for NHPP and NHFP targets.
In section 490.109(e), FHWA proposes a process for the significant
progress determination for each individual NHPP and NHFP target. In
paragraph (e)(1), FHWA proposes that FHWA would assess how the target
established by the State DOT compares to the actual condition/
performance using the data/information sources described in section
490.109(d). This process is generally outlined in Step 3 of the 3-step
process described earlier. The FHWA proposes, in section 490.109(e)(2),
that FHWA would determine that a State DOT has made significant
progress for each 2-year or 4-year target if either: (1) The actual
condition/performance level is better than the baseline condition/
performance reported in the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report; or (2) 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 6.
[[Page 23866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.005
The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs have to consider their fiscal
situation 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 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 7.
[[Page 23867]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.006
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(7), FHWA recognizes the data
limitation issues associated with the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure (in section 490.507(a)(2)) prior to the start of
the first performance period. Considering this limitation, FHWA
proposes in section 490.105(e)(7) 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 non-Interstate NHS travel
time reliability measure at the beginning of the first performance
period. Consequently, FHWA proposes in section 490.109(e)(3) that for
the first performance period only, progress toward the achievement of
2-year targets for non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability measure
would not be subject to FHWA determination under section 490.109(e)(2).
The FHWA proposes to accomplish this by categorizing the 2-year
targets for the non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability measure as
``progress not determined,'' which would exclude these targets from the
FHWA determination under section 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 establish the
4-year target. For the first performance period, FHWA would determine
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's non-
Interstate NHS travel time reliability measure targets based on HPMS
data extracted on August15 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 non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability
measure in their first Baseline Performance Period Report. However,
FHWA proposes that the process established in this section apply to all
State DOTs in order to ensure uniformity in the progress determination
process.
In section 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 or NHFP target(s), then
that State DOT would be deemed to not have made significant progress
for those individual target(s).
In section 490.109(e)(5), 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 its control when
it established targets at the beginning of the performance period. If
the explanation is accepted by FHWA, then the associated NHPP or NHFP
target(s) would be classified as ``progress not determined'' and would
not be subject to the requirement under section 490.109(f). If the
explanation is not accepted by FHWA, then the State DOT would be deemed
to not have made significant progress for the target. Proposed
extenuating circumstances are listed in 490.109(e)(5). The list
includes:
Natural or man-made disasters causing delay in NHPP or
NHFP 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 and/or regulation directing State DOTs to change
metric and/or measure calculation.
In section 490.109(f), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23
U.S.C. 167(j), FHWA has proposed that if that if
[[Page 23868]]
FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress for
any NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial determination, then the State
DOT would include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description
of the actions the State DOT will undertake to improve conditions/
performances with respect to all related measures within the measure
group. The FHWA proposed the related measures be grouped as follows:
Interstate System pavement condition--both proposed
measures Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good
condition in section 490.307(a)(1) and Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Poor condition in section 490.307(a)(2);
Non-Interstate NHS pavement condition--both proposed
measures Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor
condition in section 490.307(a)(3) and Percentage of pavements of the
non-Interstate NHS in Good condition in section 490.307(a)(4);
NHS bridge condition--both measures Percentage of NHS
bridges in Good condition in section 490.407(c)(1) and Percentage of
NHS bridges in Poor condition in section in 490.407(c)(2);
NHS travel time reliability--both measures Percent of the
Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times in section
490.507(a)(1) and Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for
Reliable Travel Times in section 490.507(a)(2); and
Peak Hour Travel Time for an Urbanized Area--both measures
Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour travel times meet
expectations in section 490.507(b)(1) and Percent of the non-Interstate
NHS where peak hour travel times meet expectations in section
490.507(b)(2). Please note the grouping for these measures is for each
urbanized area separately.
Freight movement on the Interstate System--both measures
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck
Travel Times in section 490.607(a), and Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage Uncongested in section 490.607(b).
As a general example of this proposed approach, when a State DOT
has not made significant progress for any one of the targets for NHS
travel time reliability measures (Interstate or non-Interstate NHS),
then that State DOT would, at a minimum, include in its next Biennial
Performance Report a description of the actions the State DOT will
undertake to improve conditions for NHS travel time reliability
measures (Interstate or non-Interstate NHS). As for the peak hour
travel time measures, if significant progress is not made for either
urbanized area specific target (Interstate or non-Interstate NHS), as
described in section 490.105(e)(8), for an urbanized area, then the
State DOT would document the actions it will take to improve both the
Interstate and non-Interstate NHS peak hour travel times such that both
targets for the peak hour travel time measures will be achieved for
that urbanized area.
States must provide description of the actions they will undertake
in the next Biennial Performance Report. The FHWA strongly encourages
States to add a description of their planned actions to their most
recent Biennial Report within 6 months of the FHWA significant progress
determination to ensure actions to achieve targets are taken in a
timely manner, and to improve progress toward making significant
progress for the applicable targets.
Tables 10 and 11 illustrate this proposed determination method for
both the NHPP and NHFP measures. Table 10 includes the significant
progress determination results in 2021 for the midpoint of the 1st
performance period and the significant progress determination in 2023
for the end of the 1st performance period.
[[Page 23869]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.032
[[Page 23870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.033
[[Page 23871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.034
In Table 10 above, the statewide target for the measure Percent of
the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times did not make
significant progress for the 2-year target in FHWA's biennial
determination in 2021. In this example, the State DOT would include, at
a minimum, in its next Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Full
Performance Period Progress Report in 2022) a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve its targets with
respect to both Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times and the Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for
Reliable Travel Times measures. The FHWA strongly encourages State DOTs
to add a description of their planned actions to their most recent
Biennial Reports (i.e. 2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Reports)
within 6 months of the FHWA significant progress determination to
ensure that State DOTs take actions to achieve targets in a timely
manner and to improve progress toward making significant progress for
the applicable targets.
Also in Table 10, for the hypothetical ``Urbanized Area A,'' the
urbanized area target for the measure Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
where peak hour travel times meet expectations did not make significant
progress for the 4-year target in FHWA's biennial determination in
2023. In this example, the State DOT would include in its next Biennial
Performance Report (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report in
2024) a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake to
improve its performance with respect to both ``Urbanized Area A's
relevant measures: Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour
travel times meet expectations and the Percent of the Interstate System
where peak hour travel times meet expectations measures. In addition,
this hypothetical State DOT did not make significant progress for the
statewide target for the measure The Percent of the Interstate System
Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel Times for the 4-year target
in FHWA's determination in 2023. So the State DOT would, at a minimum,
include in its next Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Mid Performance
Period Progress Report in 2024) a description of the actions the State
DOT will undertake to achieve targets with respect to both the Percent
of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel
Times and the Percent of the Interstate System Mileage
[[Page 23872]]
Uncongested measures. The FHWA strongly encourages State DOTs to add a
description of their planned actions to their most recent Biennial
Reports (i.e. 2022 Full Performance Period Progress Reports) within 6
months of the FHWA significant progress determination to ensure that
State DOTs take actions to achieve targets in a timely manner and to
improve progress toward making significant progress for the applicable
targets.
The FHWA believes that any one of the targets would impact other
targets in the same measure group and 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 rather
than isolated description on a subset of the network. 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 section 490.109, FHWA
would make the significant progress determination each time the State
DOT submits its Mid Performance Period Progress Report and its Full
Performance Period Progress Report (every 2 years). In section
490.109(f)(2), FHWA proposes the consequences for not making
significant progress for the NHFP measures in 490.105(c)(6). Pursuant
to 23 U.S.C. 167(j), if a State DOT has not made significant progress
toward the achievement of NHFP targets in a single FHWA biennial
determination, then the State DOT must take the required actions in
section 490.109(f)(2).
When a State DOT does not make significant progress toward the
achievement of NHFP targets, it must include a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve the targets in its next
Biennial Performance Report. This discussion must include:
A description of the actions the State DOT will undertake
to achieve targets including an identification of significant freight
system trends, needs and issues within the State;
a description of the freight policies and strategies that
will guide the freight-related transportation investments of the State;
an inventory of freight bottlenecks with the State and a
description of the ways in which the State DOT is allocating national
highway freight program funds to improve those bottlenecks; and
a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake
to meet the performance targets of the State.
For the purpose of the requirements in section 490.109(f)(2), the
State DOT may reference the Statewide Freight Plan elements that
identify freight system trends, needs and issues, as well as the
freight policies and strategies in the Plan to guide investment. Under
Section 150(e), State DOTs are already responsible for reporting on
ways in which the State DOT is addressing freight bottlenecks, which
are defined as those segments of the Interstates not meeting the
threshold levels for congestion and average speed, as well as any other
bottlenecks the State DOT wishes to include and anything that is
identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan. The State DOT will
provide an inventory of those segments as defined for section 150(e)
and any other locations the State DOT wishes to reference as a
bottleneck, as well as any bottleneck referenced in the National
Freight Strategic Plan. Additionally, the State DOT will describe how
funding is or will be allocated to improve freight fluidity through
bottlenecks, as well as other actions to meet performance targets of
the Interstates in the State.
In section 490.109(f)(3), FHWA proposes that State DOTs who fail to
make significant progress for either the NHPP or NHFP should amend
their Biennial Performance Reports within 6 months of FHWA's
determination to include the actions they will take to achieve their
targets. State DOTs are required to include description of the actions
the State DOT will undertake to achieve targets in its next Biennial
Performance Reports to meet the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), as
described in paragraph (f) of this section. State DOTs are encouraged
to amend their most recent Biennial Performance Reports to include this
information. As discussed in sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) and
490.107(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 and NHFP measures in each of their Biennial Performance
Reports. The 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 their NHPP
and NHFP targets and expects State DOTs to be aware of their progress
prior to the time of each Biennial Performance Report. As described in
the discussion of section 490.109(c), 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 in a timely manner to improve progress toward
making significant progress for the targets reported in subsequent
Biennial Performance Reports. Thus, in section 490.109(f)(3), FHWA
proposes that the State DOT should, within 6 months of the significant
progress determination, amend its Biennial Performance Report to
document the information specified in this section to ensure actions
are being taken to achieve targets.
Discussion of Section 490.111 Incorporation by Reference
In the second performance measure NPRM, FHWA had proposed to
incorporate the proposed HPMS Field Manual to codify the data
requirements for measures and to be consistent with HPMS reporting
requirements. In this NPRM, FHWA proposes to extend that incorporation
to subparts E though G. This would codify the data requirements for
these measures and ensure consistency 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.
2. Subpart E: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway System
In this section, FHWA describes the proposed provisions in Subpart
E, which would establish performance measures to assess the performance
of the NHS. The discussions of the proposed requirements are organized
as follows:
Section 490.501 discusses the purpose of the subpart;
Section 490.503 describes the applicability of the
subpart;
Section 490.505 presents the definitions;
Section 490.507 discusses the performance measures;
Section 490.509 describes the data requirements;
Section 490.511 identifies how to calculate performance
metrics; and,
Section 490.513 presents how to calculate performance
measures.
Relationship Between Data Requirements, Calculation of Metrics, and
Calculation of Measures
The following provides a general discussion of the relationship
between data requirements, metrics, and measures. This relationship
exists in this Subpart as well as Subparts F--H.
[[Page 23873]]
The proposed approach to determining individual measures includes data
requirements, methods to calculate metrics, and methods to calculate
measures. These are presented in sections 409.509, 490.511, and
409.513, respectively, and in similar sections in Subparts F--H. This
proposed approach is presented as follows:
Data Requirements--Outlines the data necessary to
determine the required set of metrics that would be used to calculate
the relevant measures. The type of data to be collected, the methods of
data collection, and the extent and frequency of collection are
described below and in the appropriate sections.
Metrics--Describes the values that would be calculated
from the data collected to support measure development and how to
report the individual metrics.
Measures--Provides the method to calculate the measures
using reported metrics. State DOTs would use the calculated measures to
report baseline condition or performance, establish targets, and report
on progress.
Discussion of Section 490.501 Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), to establish
performance measures for State DOTs to use to assess the performance of
the Interstate System and of the non-Interstate NHS. In this Subpart,
FHWA proposes to establish two measures (1) a travel time reliability
measure and (2) a peak hour travel time measure.
Discussion of Section 490.503 Applicability
The FHWA is proposing to establish a travel time reliability
measure to apply to the entire NHS, including Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS elements. This measure would compare the longest
travel time or slowest speed that occurs during a specified time frame
to a reference travel time or speed for a transportation facility. A
reliability measure is an indication of the extra time travelers must
add to their trips in order to have a high degree of certainty that
they will arrive at their destination on time. The FHWA has defined
travel time reliability as the variability of travel times.
Reliability, in the eyes of transportation system users, reflects how
consistent a travel time is on portions of the NHS they are traveling
on. The larger the variability of travel times is from day-to-day or
hour-to-hour, the more the user has to plan for unexpectedly long
travel times when planning a trip. For instance, to make sure a
traveler arrives at the airport in time for a flight, the traveler may
allot extra travel time to ensure that he/she arrives in time in case
of traffic incident, bad weather, or road construction along the way.
In more mathematical terms, reliability looks at the longer (all
travelers) or longest (freight) travel times faced by users on portions
of the NHS and compares these times to what is typically experienced by
the system user (normal travel time). The larger the difference in
these travel times, the worse the reliability is. In order to improve
reliability, State DOTs and MPOs can implement operational and other
strategies that are specifically designed make the system more reliable
and efficient.
The reliability measure proposed in this NPRM would be reported as
a Percent of the Interstate System providing reliable travel times and
as the Percent of the Non-Interstate NHS providing reliable travel
times. What that really means is that the number of miles on the
Interstate or Non-Interstate NHS that performed in a reliable manner
will be those miles where the travel time during any time period of the
``daylight'' hours (6 a.m. to 8 p.m.), 7 days a week, did not surpass
the normal travel time by more 50 percent. The time periods during
``daylight'' hours include: 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. weekdays, 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. weekdays, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, and weekend days 6 a.m. to 8
p.m. If the longer travel times exceed the normal travel time by 50
percent or more in any of these time periods, then that section of road
is considered unreliable. The FHWA experience and analysis led to the
proposed threshold of 1.5, which reflects 50 percent longer travel
times. The FHWA seeks comments on whether the 1.5 threshold is
appropriate.
The calculations (or metrics) used to report this measure report
the travel time reliability for every road segment on the NHS, so it
will be readily apparent to State DOTs, MPOs, and the general public
where the NHS road segments are that have a reliability problem.
The FHWA also notes two important refinements that strengthen
travel time reliability measures: (1) Some operating agencies currently
exclude the top 20 percent of longest travel times throughout the year
when developing reliability-related measures because these travel times
typically are due to extreme events that are beyond an agency's control
and should not be considered in the assessment of overall system
performance; and (2) the reference travel time used in a reliability
measure often reflects travel time associated with typical or average
travel speeds rather than the time associated with free flow travel
speeds.
By establishing targets for, and reporting on this measure, State
DOTs and MPOs can better identify and manage portions of the NHS where
users experience unreliable travel. Note that FHWA is proposing a
phase-in for the establishment of targets for the non-Interstate NHS
reliability measure which is outlined in more detail under the
discussion for section 490.105(e)(7).
The FHWA is proposing to establish a peak hour travel time measure
to apply to the NHS, including Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS, within urbanized areas with a population over 1 million. By
establishing targets for, and reporting on this measure, State DOTs and
MPOs can better identify and manage portions of the NHS in major
urbanized areas regardless of roadway ownership. As proposed, FHWA
expects State DOTs and MPOs to use this measure to report one outcome
for each of the applicable urbanized areas, even in cases where the
boundary of the urbanized area intersects multiple States and
metropolitan planning areas.
Discussion of Section 490.505 Definitions
The FHWA is proposing to define Desired Peak Period Travel Time as
the travel time during 3 morning peak hours and the 3 evening peak
hours, for each reporting segment in urbanized areas with a population
over 1 million. State DOTs shall coordinate with MPOs when establishing
the Desired Peak Period Travel Time. A State DOT and MPO(s) must use
the same Desired Peak Period Travel Time for a particular reporting
segment for the purposes of calculating the metrics and measures. The
Desired Peak Period Travel Time should represent a travel time that is
consistent with the intended plan and design of the roadway as part of
a complete transportation system. The Desired Peak Period Travel Time
should be developed in consultation with operating agencies as well. An
operating agency is the agency or agencies that actually operate the
NHS roadways at the most local level--this could be a State DOT, MPO,
or a local (city, town, county) transportation agency. Operating means
applying operational strategies in the day to day management of the NHS
roadways; strategies such as posting travel times, sending out freeway
service patrols, altering signal timing, and other items that could
improve the efficiency and reliability of the NHS. The Desired Peak
Period Travel Time will be used to calculate the Peak Hour measure
which assesses peak hour travel and should represent a
[[Page 23874]]
travel time that is consistent with the intended plan and design of the
roadway as a part of a complete transportation system.
The FHWA is proposing to define Level of Travel Time Reliability
(LOTTR) as a comparison, expressed as a ratio, of the 80th percentile
travel time of a reporting segment to the ``normal'' (50th percentile)
travel time of a reporting segment occurring throughout a full calendar
year. The 80th percentile travel time reflects the longer travel times
to make a trip. The FHWA chose the 80th percentile travel time because
it reflects the travel time where operational strategies can make the
most impact on improving reliability. The closer the 80th percentile
travel time is to the normal (50th percentile) travel time, the better
the reliability. The FHWA seeks comments on this methodology.
The FHWA is proposing to define Normal Travel Time as the time
expected of Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS roadway users to
travel when the system is predominantly in use. This time is proposed
to be defined as the 50th percentile travel time occurring during this
defined time period. The 50th percentile relates to the travel time
that occurs in the middle of a distribution of all travel times for
that travel time segment during that time period over a 1-year
reporting period. The FHWA selected the 50th percentile as ``normal
travel'' because it represents the ``normal'' experiences of travelers,
rather than free flow travel (which would typically be a lower
percentile, such as the 20th).
The FHWA is proposing to define Peak Hour Travel Time as the hour
that contains the longest annual average travel time during the peak
period of each non-holiday weekday. The peak period is made up of the
hours of the day where the most people typically commute, or the hours
with the highest amount of travel and include: Morning (6:00 a.m. to
7:00 a.m.; 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and
afternoon (4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m.). This definition is needed as the peak period would
be used as the time frame to develop the Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio
metric.
The FHWA is proposing to define Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio as the
ratio between the longest peak hour travel time and the Desired Peak
Period Travel Time. The closer the ratio is to 1.0, the more the actual
peak hour travel time reflects the desired peak period travel time.
A Travel Time Cumulative Probability Distribution is the approach
State DOTs and MPOs would use to determine percentiles needed for the
travel time reliability measure. A travel time cumulative probability
distribution is a representation of all the travel times for a road
segment during a defined reporting period (such as annually) presented
in a percentile ranked order (see Table 11 below for an example). In a
graphic representation, as shown in the lower graph in Figure 8, the x-
axis is the span of travel times (from shortest to longest) and the y-
axis is the probability that a travel time will occur at or slower than
the travel time on the x-axis. The upper graph in Figure 8 shows the
travel time distribution, with travel time on the x-axis and the number
of occurrences over a year on the y-axis. In a graphic representation
of a cumulative probability distribution, the variability in travel
time is indicated by the difference between the upper and lower bounds
of travel times on a given travel time segment. For purposes of this
subpart, FHWA is proposing that the upper and lower bounds be
identified as the 80th and 50th percentile travel times respectively,
as illustrated in the lower graph in Figure 8. Travel time variability
will reduce as the difference between the upper and lower bounds
decreases or as the slope of the cumulative probability distribution
curve increases.
[[Page 23875]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.007
Table 11--Example Travel Time Distribution Showing Percentiles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example travel time distribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel time on
Rank (shortest to longest) road segment Percentiles
(seconds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 20
2......................................... 20
3......................................... 20
4......................................... 21
5......................................... 21
6......................................... 22
7......................................... 22
8......................................... 22
9......................................... 22
10........................................ 23 50th
11........................................ 24
12........................................ 24
13........................................ 24
14........................................ 25
15........................................ 27
16........................................ 27 80th
17........................................ 29
18........................................ 33
19........................................ 40
20........................................ 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that Table 11 is a simple illustration of obtaining
50th and 80th percentile values in a hypothetical dataset with 20
travel time entries. Within Table 11, the 50th percentile is calculated
by multiplying the total number of travel time entries (20) by 0.5
resulting in ``10.'' So the tenth entry in the table would be the 50th
percentile travel time (23 seconds). The same approach would be used
with the 80th percentile calculation: 20 travel time entries x 0.8 = 16
so the 16th entry is the 80th percentile travel time (27 seconds).
Please see section 490.511 for the specifics on the proposed metrics
for Travel Time Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Time measures.
Discussion of Section 490.507 National Performance Management Measures
To Assess Performance of the NHS
The FHWA is proposing in section 490.507 the establishment of four
measures to be used to assess the
[[Page 23876]]
performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS. The first
two measures, which are focused on travel time reliability, are
applicable to all NHS roadways in the State. The next two measures,
focused on peak hour travel time, are applicable to all NHS roadways
within urbanized areas with a population greater than 1 million. A
total of four measures are proposed:
Travel Time Reliability:
Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable
travel times
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable
travel times
Peak Hour Travel Time:
Percent of the Interstate System in large urbanized areas
over 1 million in population where peak hour travel times meet
expectations
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS in large urbanized areas
over 1 million in population where peak hour travel times meet
expectations.
State DOTs and MPOs would need to establish targets for each of
these measures in accordance with section 490.105. These measures would
be calculated using the metrics proposed in section 490.511 following
the methods proposed in section 490.513. The data to support the
measures are proposed in section 490.509. The proposed travel time
reliability measures are designed to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to
better understand the scope of reliability problems on their highway
systems and to aid in identifying and implementing strategies to
improve system performance. These measures are intended to quantify the
variability in travel times experienced by users of the highway system
during hours of the day when the predominant travel occurs on the
system. In general, the variability captured by the proposed measures
would be a comparison of some of the longer travel times experienced by
users compared to the amount of time users typically expect their
travel to take. This comparison is an indication of how reliable the
highway system is, in terms of how close actual travel times are to
what is expected by users.
Based on research the FHWA has been doing for the past several
years, it believes that measuring the reliability of travel times is a
key to operating the system more efficiently and reliably.\91\ The FHWA
also heard from a wide range of stakeholders that travel time
reliability is important and should be considered in this rulemaking.
In addition, many stakeholders expressed a desire for a reliability
measure to capture longer than normal travel times that would occur as
a result of non-recurring congestion, such as traffic incidents, work
zones, and special events, which can be managed by operating agencies
through improved traffic flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Urban Congestion Report Program (https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/ucr/index.htm) Urban
Congestion Trend and ``Traffic Congestion and Reliability'' reports
(https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/reliability_reports.htm) Travel Time Reliability Overview Brochure
and Guidance Document (https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/reliability_measures/index.htm) SHRP 2 Reliability Program (esp.
L03) Lessons Learned: Monitoring Highway Congestion and Reliability
Using Archived Traffic Detector Data (https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/lessons_learned/index.htm) Monitoring Urban Freeways in
2003 (https://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/FHWA-HOP-05-018.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed peak hour travel time measures are designed to be used
by State DOTs and MPOs in urbanized areas over 1 million in population
to better understand the scope of undesirable congestion problems in
these large urbanized areas and to identify and implement strategies to
improve system performance in these areas. The measures are designed to
compare the longest average time of travel experienced by users during
peak hours of the day to the travel time desired for the system. The
FHWA is proposing in section 490.511(c)(1) that the State DOT, in
coordination with MPOs, establish a desired time of travel for sections
of their highway system that would be consistent with its intended use
and design. The proposed measure would represent the percentage of the
applicable highway network where actual travel times experienced during
peak hours meets the expectations of the State DOT and MPOs. The FHWA
is proposing that peak hour travel times that meet expectations would
be those conditions where actual travel times are less than 50 percent
greater than what is desired for the highway.
The FHWA heard concerns from many stakeholders regarding the
effectiveness of the establishment of measures that would utilize an
absolute speed or travel time as a reference to assess NHS performance.
Many felt that some portions of the new expanded NHS highway network
may be functioning as intended even when traffic is not flowing freely.
Considering this, FHWA is proposing an approach where State DOTs, in
coordination with MPOs, would establish Desired Peak Period Travel
Times (as times that are desired for the reporting segment) to be used
as the basis for the peak hour measures. The Desired Peak Hour Period
Travel Time would reflect the policies and management approach for the
urbanized areas. In addition, as discussed in section 490.105(e)(8),
FHWA is proposing that the peak hour travel time measures would only be
applicable to NHS highways in urbanized areas where populations are
greater than 1 million. For these measures, one single target would be
established and reported for each applicable urbanized area, where
collectively all State DOTs and MPOs in these areas would need to agree
on the single target even where the urbanized area intersects with
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. In total, based on the 2010 U.S.
Census, 42 targets would be established nationwide using this measure--
one for each urbanized area where populations are greater than 1
million. This approach is being proposed so that State DOTs and MPOs
can work collectively to address highway performance problems that
cross geographic boundaries and impact the ability to improve system
performance throughout the urbanized area.
Discussion of Section 490.509 Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing for State DOTs and MPOs to use a travel time
data set that would meet the requirements discussed in section 490.103
of this rulemaking to calculate the metrics defined in section 490.511.
State DOTs and MPOs would use the same travel time data set to assess
the performance of the directional mainline highways of the NHS.
The FHWA is proposing State DOTs, in coordination with MPOs,
establish and submit reporting segments as discussed in section 490.103
of this rulemaking. These reporting segments would be used as the basis
for calculating and reporting metrics to the FHWA and for State DOTs
and MPOs to calculate the measures proposed in this subpart to assess
Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS performance. Reporting
segments, as defined in 490.101, include one or more travel time
segments and must be contiguous so that they cover the full extent of
the mainline highways of the NHS in the State. The section 490.103
discussion included in this rulemaking provides more information on the
proposal for State DOTs to define and submit reporting segments.
The FHWA is proposing in this section that State DOTs would use the
posted speed limits of roadways to estimate travel times for
calculating the Reliability metrics when the data is missing or
represented as a time of ``0'' or null in the Travel Time Data Set. The
proposed use of the posted speed data is discussed in section 490.511.
The FHWA is not proposing that posted
[[Page 23877]]
speed limit data be reported as part of this rulemaking.
The areas that would be applicable to the Peak Hour Travel Time
measure would be identified when the State DOT Baseline Performance
Period Report is due to FHWA, based on the urbanized area boundaries at
that time. These areas would continue to be applicable to the measure
(or conversely ``not applicable'') for the duration of the performance
period regardless of population changes that may occur during the
performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the applicability of the
area be determined using the most recent U.S. Decennial Census reports
on area populations. At the time of this rulemaking, the Peak Hour
Travel Time measure would be applicable to 42 urbanized areas in the
United States.
Discussion of Section 490.511 Calculation of System Performance Metrics
The FHWA is proposing that two metrics need to be calculated to
develop the Travel Time Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Time measures
proposed in this rulemaking. They are the LOTTR metric and the Peak
Hour Travel Time Ratio (PHTTR) metric. State DOTs would be required to
calculate these metrics for all applicable roadway segments for the
applicable time periods and report them to FHWA annually. The proposed
approach to calculate and report these metrics is discussed in this
section.
As proposed in section 490.511(b), the LOTTR metric would be
calculated annually by the State DOT for all reporting segments on the
NHS in the State and used by FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs to assess the
performance of the system. The source of data would be the Travel Time
Data Set. The FHWA is proposing that 5 minute travel time bins that do
not have data reported, or are reported as null, or ``0'' in the Travel
Time Data Set would be replaced with a calculation of the travel time
needed to fully traverse the travel time segment while traveling at the
posted speed limit. This will ensure that a complete set of travel
times for the time periods throughout the day needed to calculate the
LOTTR metric are utilized. The FHWA believes that, in order to
calculate an accurate assessment of reliability, travel times
throughout the day are necessary to capture the variability of travel
times on the system. The FHWA is proposing that in cases where travel
times are not recorded, typically due to a lack of probe sources, it is
assumed that vehicles are travelling at the posted speed limit. The
FHWA believes that this assumption is valid since a lack of vehicles
present during a 5 minute interval on a roadway segment generally
indicates uncongested conditions. The FHWA believes that as
technologies improve and the percentage of vehicles containing
equipment capable of communicating with vehicle probes increases, the
potential for missing data will decrease over time. Considering the
possibility for travel times to be missing during different time
intervals of the day and the need for a complete data set to accurately
calculate the reliability metric, FHWA encourages comments from the
public on this proposed approach and/or alternative approaches that
could be used reliably as part of a national performance program.
The FHWA is proposing that the LOTTR metric is based on the
variability of travel times over a full year during following time
periods: Weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.; 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.;
4:00 to 8:00 p.m.; and weekend days 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The FHWA
selected these time periods to cover peak hours and other times of day
the system may be used the most. It is FHWA's desire to have the Travel
Time Reliability metric reflect the level of consistency in travel
times during hours of the day when the majority of highway use occurs.
In addition, by using these smaller time periods, State DOTs and MPOs
may better understand reliability issues during varying travel periods
throughout the week (i.e., peak periods, weekday mid-day, and weekends)
and implement effective operational strategies. Evaluating the defined
time periods would remove the times of day when travel is typically
uncongested due to the lack of vehicle use. The proposed time periods
for the LOTTR metric covers 14 hours of each day resulting in 168
average travel time values for each reporting segment (stored in each 5
minute bin), either directly measured from probes or using the
calculated travel time at posted speed limit as discussed above. The
FHWA is proposing that the LOTTR metric be based on a full calendar
year of data which would require the analysis of up to 61,488 travel
time values for each reporting segment.\92\ Analyzing this volume of
data for each reporting segment will be simpler for the State DOTs and
MPOs if they use an automated spreadsheet or other software product
that features a ``percentile'' function. This function can be used to
generate the 50th percentile or ``normal time'' (a shorter travel time)
and the 80th percentile travel time (a longer travel time) that are
being proposed to calculate the metric. The FHWA is proposing the use
of the 80th percentile travel time because it is generally accepted as
the upper bound of travel times that transportation agencies can
plausibly manage using available resources; travel times beyond this
point are acknowledged to occur during unique traffic incidents that
are outside the control of a transportation agency.\93\ The FHWA is
proposing the use of the 50th percentile travel time to represent the
``normal'' or expected time of travel during hours of the day when the
highway is predominantly used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Estimate based on multiplying 168 travel time values per
day by 366 days in the longest year that could occur.
\93\ SHRP 2 Project L03: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-L03-RR-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA reviewed other options for the denominator in the LOTTR
metric and determined that the 50th percentile, more so than either the
20th percentile or average travel time, more accurately reflected the
expected time. Use of the 50th percentile, along with the 80th
percentile, travel time, shows the variability in travel times that
operational strategies can positively affect in helping to improve
travel time reliability.
In general, the proposed calculation is made by ranking, from the
shortest travel time to the longest, all the travel time values in each
reporting segment for each time period (weekdays 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 10
a.m. to 4 p.m.; and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. and weekends 6 a.m.to 8 p.m.)
every day from January 1st through December 31st and identifying the
50th and 80th percentile travel times in this series for each time
period. An example is contained in Table 11. The FHWA is proposing that
the LOTTR metric would be calculated by developing a ratio that
compares the 80th percentile travel time to the normal (50th
percentile) travel time as shown in the following equation.
[[Page 23878]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.008
The resulting LOTTR metrics (one for each time period) would be
rounded to the nearest hundredth decimal place and calculated for every
NHS reporting segment within the State. The LOTTR values for each of
the four time periods would be reported for the relevant reporting
segment. The FHWA believes that the comparison of the 80th and 50th
percentiles of the travel times occurring during the time periods
identified, the most typical travel times, will reflect the reliability
of the system as perceived by most highway users. The FHWA encourages
comments from the public on the use of time periods to develop the
LOTTR metric, as well as the number and length of the time periods
proposed.
In section 490.511(c), FHWA is proposing that the PHTTR metric
would be calculated by State DOTs for all NHS mileage within urbanized
areas with a population over 1 million using average peak hour travel
times derived from the Travel Time Data Set. The proposed metric is a
comparison of the longest average hourly travel time, referred to in
this rulemaking as the ``peak hour travel time,'' to the travel time
desired by the State DOT and MPO for the reporting segment. The FHWA is
not proposing to address missing data for this metric as:
The metric is focused on travel occurring during only peak
hours of the day when it may not be correct to assume free flowing
conditions when data are missing; and
the metric is computed using hourly average travel times
that can be determined even if there are missing 5 minute travel time
bins within the one hour time period.
The FHWA also proposes that, for this metric, any 5 minute bin
travel times that represent travel speeds below 2 mph or above 100 mph
be excluded from the metric calculation to remove outliers that may
negatively affect the metric. The FHWA encourages comments on these
approaches and invites suggestions on alternatives that could be
considered that may be more effective.
In this rulemaking, FHWA is proposing that the peak period of
travel will occur between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 4:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. on non-holiday weekdays. The six 1-hour time blocks
within these periods are referred to as the ``peak period'' in this
rulemaking. The FHWA proposes a 2-step process of determining the peak
hour of travel time for calculating the PHTTR metric for a reporting
segment. As the first step, the annual average travel time for each of
the six hourly blocks in the peak period (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 7:00
a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 5:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) would be calculated
separately for a reporting segment. For calculating those six annual
averages, measured travel times on non-holiday weekdays over a full
calendar year would be used. As the second step, the highest numeric
value, or longest time, of the annual average travel time among the
hours in the peak period would be selected as the peak hour travel time
for calculating the PHTTR metric for the reporting segment and that
hour would be referred to as the ``peak hour'' for metric and measure
development purposes. For example, if annual average peak hour travel
times across a reporting segment were as follows: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00
a.m.: 125 seconds; 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.: 196 seconds; 8:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m.: 120 seconds; 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.: 105 seconds; 5:00 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m.: 105 seconds; 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.: 108 seconds, then
the 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. period with an average annual hourly travel
time of 196 seconds would be selected as the peak hour and used to
calculate the PHTTR.
This proposed process is illustrated in the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.009
Where:
Max = longest average travel time of the six peak hours
i = ``peak hours'' (each hour between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
j = day of the year
T = total number of days in the year
k = 5 minute bin
Travel Timek,j,i = vehicle travel time, to the nearest
second, for the reporting segment recorded or estimated during 5
minute bin ``k,'' on day ``j,'' during the peak hour ``i''
Peak Hour Travel Time = the highest recorded annual average
travel time, to the nearest second, occurring throughout the year
during the ``peak hours.''
The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs, in coordination with MPOs,
establish Desired Peak Period Travel Times for each reporting segment,
based on their operational policies for NHS roadways. The FHWA
recommends that these Desired Peak Period Travel Times also be
developed in consultation with operating agencies. For each reporting
segment, State DOTs would need to report a single ``Desired Peak Period
Travel Time'' for the morning hours in the peak period and a single
``Desired Peak Period Travel Time'' for the afternoon hours in the peak
period when reporting segments are submitted to FHWA as proposed in
section 490.103(f). As proposed, State DOTs would only be allowed to
modify the Desired Peak Period Travel Time if the reporting segment
lengths change during a performance period. The FHWA anticipates that
State DOTs will work with MPOs, in consultation with applicable
operating agencies, to develop polices (i.e., desired travel at posted
speed limits) that would determine how the desired level would be
established. Under this proposed approach, FHWA does not plan to
approve or judge the Desired Peak Period Travel time levels or the
policies that will lead to the establishment of these levels.
The FHWA is proposing that the PHTTR ratio is a comparison of the
Peak Hour Travel Time to the Desired Peak Period Travel Time for each
reporting segment and calculated as illustrated in the following
equation:
[[Page 23879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.010
Where:
Peak Hour Travel Time = the longest recorded average annual
travel time, to the nearest second, occurring throughout the year
during the ``peak hour;''
Desired Peak Period Travel Time = the desired travel time,
to the nearest second, in the peak period, either morning or
afternoon, that corresponds to the hour in which the Peak Hour
Travel Time occurred;
PHTTR = Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio for the reporting
segment to the nearest hundredth.
In section 490.511(d), FHWA is proposing for State DOTs to report
annually the LOTTR and PHTTR metrics for each applicable reporting
segment on the NHS. State DOTs would report these metrics in HPMS no
later than June 15th of the following year (i.e., metrics for calendar
year 2017 would be reported no later than June 15, 2018). Specifically,
FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would report annually the following
to the HPMS for each reporting segment:
NPMRDS TMC codes (or related reporting segments made up of
multiple Travel Time Segments) or standard HPMS location referencing;
LOTTR metrics for each of the four time periods, to the
nearest hundredth;
80th percentile, travel times for each of the four time
periods to the nearest second;
50th percentile, travel times for each of the four time
periods to the nearest second;
PHTTR metric, to the nearest hundredth;
Peak Hour Travel Time, to the nearest second; and
the Hour (6 a.m., 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., or 6
p.m.)
The FHWA intends to issue additional guidance on how State DOTs
could report these data to HPMS. The FHWA recognizes the burden
associated with the efforts needed to conflate (or relate) travel time
reporting segments (NPMRDS data locations) to locations on a defined
roadway network (State GIS-based locations). For this reason, FHWA is
not proposing a requirement for State DOTs to conflate the travel time
reporting segments to the HPMS roadway network. The FHWA intends to
conduct this conflation.
Discussion of Section 490.513 Calculation of System Performance
Measures
The FHWA is proposing section 490.513 to establish a method that
can be used by State DOTs, MPOs, and FHWA to calculate the performance
measures proposed in section 490.507. These system performance measures
are based on the performance metrics proposed in section 490.511
Calculation of System Performance Metric(s). The FHWA expects that
State DOTs and MPOs will use the methods proposed in this section to
assess and report on the performance of the system. The FHWA proposes
to use this calculation method to report on performance at a national
level and to carry out its evaluation of the progress made by State
DOTs to achieve their NHPP targets.
The proposed calculation method would be used to determine the
percentage of the system, by length, operating at a specified level of
performance. The general format for this calculation is illustrated in
the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.011
Where:
i = reporting segment
R = total number of reporting segments operating at a
specified performance level, as defined through a threshold proposed
for each metric
T = total number of reporting segments in the system and
area applicable to the measure
SLi = length of the reporting segment, to the
nearest thousandth of a mile
Measure = the percentage of the system operating at a
specified performance level (operating below the metric threshold).
The FHWA is proposing the level that represents reliable travel to
highway users is a LOTTR of 1.50. This LOTTR level represents an
operating level where 80 percent of the travel times observed on a
roadway segment is less than 50 percent more than what is observed
normally (defined as the 50th percentile travel time for this
rulemaking). The LOTTR is a ratio, so a 1.0 would mean that the 80th
and 50th percentile travel times were the same. A 1.50 or above LOTTR
means that the 80th percentile travel time is 50 percent longer than
the 50th percentile travel time and represents less than acceptable
travel time reliability. In general, this operating level of
reliability represents conditions where the amount of time to travel on
an NHS highway is up to 50 percent longer than what users would have
expected. The FHWA also considered a threshold of 2.0, or twice the
normal travel time, but determined that these travel times would be
longer than most system users would consider reliable. The FHWA
ultimately chose the 1.5 threshold understanding that there will be
some variability in travel time that may be beyond the ability of
operating agencies to affect. While any LOTTR above 1.00 would indicate
some variability in travel time, it is the variability that is 50
percent more than the normal time that is being addressed with this
measure and that has the ability to be addressed through operational
and other strategy implementation. The FHWA encourages comments from
the public on the proposed LOTTR threshold level of 1.50 and if it is
at the appropriate level to indicate unreliable performance.
The FHWA is proposing that a PHTTR threshold level of 1.50
represents peak hour travel times that meet expectations of State DOTs,
MPOs, and local operating agencies. This PHTTR level represents a
condition where observed (or estimated) travel times in large urbanized
areas are no more than 50 percent higher than what would be desired for
the roadway, as identified by the State DOT and MPO. The PHTTR is a
ratio where 1.0 would mean that that the actual peak hour travel time
would equal to the Desired Peak Period Travel Time. So a PHTTR of 1.5
represents an actual peak hour travel time that is 50 percent higher
than the Desired Peak Period Travel Time. The FHWA feels that a PHTTR
level of 1.50 or higher indicates a roadway is no longer meeting its
intended purpose, as desired by local needs, to move traffic through
the system. The FHWA encourages comments from the public on the
proposed PHTTR threshold level of 1.50 and if it is at the appropriate
level to
[[Page 23880]]
indicate that peak hour travel time performance meets expectations.
Both of these measures use the same threshold--1.50. The FHWA
believes that highway users and operating agencies begin to consider
the system to not meet expectations when trips take 50 percent longer
than what they would normally expect. For example, highway users would
become frustrated with the system when a trip that is expected to take
30 minutes ends up taking 45 minutes or longer.
For the reliability measure, FHWA evaluated the impact of different
threshold values ranging from 1.2 to 2.0 on reliability of the
Interstate System in five States that varied in size and population.
This evaluation showed minimal sensitivity to changes in reliability
when the reliability threshold was above 1.6 and a sharp drop off in
reliability when the threshold was below 1.3. The FHWA's proposed
threshold value of 1.50 resulted in reliability levels that appeared to
be reasonable as a level that could be used to manage performance.
A summary of the criteria described previously for the proposed
performance measures, including the measure, the metric, and
transportation network or geographic area the measure would apply to,
is provided in Table 12 below:
Table 12--Summary of Proposed Performance Measure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
transportation
Measure Metric & threshold network/
geographic area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
490.507(a)(1): Percent of the LOTTR < 1.50
Interstate System providing Interstate
for reliable travel times System.
(calculation proposed in
490.513(b)).
490.507(a)(2): Percent of the LOTTR < 1.50 Non-
non-Interstate NHS providing Interstate NHS.
for reliable travel times
(calculation proposed in
490.513(c)).
490.507(b)(1): Percent of the PHTTR < 1.50
Interstate System where peak Interstate
hour travel times meet System in each
expectations (calculation urbanized area
proposed in 490.513(d)). [dagger] with a
population >1
M.
490.507(b)(2): Percent of the PHTTR < 1.50 Non-
non-Interstate NHS where peak Interstate NHS
hour travel times meet in each
expectations (calculation urbanized area
proposed in 490.513(e)). [dagger] with a
population >1
M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] One measure would be calculated for each urbanized area,
including those urbanized areas that intersect with multiple State and
metropolitan planning area boundaries.
3. Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures To Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate System
In this sub-section, FHWA describes the proposed requirements in
Subpart F, which would establish performance measures to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System. The discussions of the proposed
requirements are organized as follows:
Section 490.601 discusses the purpose of the subpart;
Section 490.603 describes the applicability of the
subpart;
Section 490.605 presents the definitions;
Section 490.607 discusses the performance measures;
Section 490.609 describes the data requirements;
