Improving Road Safety for All Users on Federal-Aid Projects, 7510-7514 [2023-02285]

Download as PDF 7510 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Notices soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on June 12, 2019 (84 FR 27391). There were no comments. The FAA established requirements for human space flight and space flight participants required by the Commercial Launch Amendment of 2004. The information collected is used by the FAA, A licensee or permittee, a space flight participant. Respondents: All commercial space entities that propose to conduct a launch or reentry with flight crew or space flight participants on board must comply with this collection. Frequency: On occasion. Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4 Hours. Estimated Total Annual Burden: 632 Hours. Issued in Washington, DC. James A. Hatt, Space Policy Division Manager, Office of Commercial Space Transportation. [FR Doc. 2023–02332 Filed 2–2–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FRA–2022–0923] Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Part 142, Certificated Training Centers Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on July 11, 2022. The collection involves Certificated Training Centers. Operators pay Certificated Training Centers to provide training to their employees, typically pilots, on different types of equipment if training is not done in house. The information to be collected is necessary because it allows aviation safety inspectors (operations) to review and to provide surveillance to training centers to ensure compliance with airman training, testing, and certification requirements specified in other parts of the regulations. If the information were not collected, lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Feb 02, 2023 Jkt 259001 inspectors would not be able to determine if airmen who are clients are being trained, checked or tested to meet the safety standards established in other parts of the regulations. To date, FAA inspectors have used the information collected to determine and assess regulatory compliance during routine program surveillance. DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 6, 2023. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ray by email at: Sandra.ray@ faa.gov; phone: 412–329–3088. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA’s performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. OMB Control Number: 2120–0570. Title: Part 142, Certificated Training Centers. Form Numbers: None. Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection. Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on July 11, 2022 (87 FR 41162). Part 142 Flight Schools are subject to several collection requirements. 14 CFR part 142 is one of several Federal Regulation parts that implement the Public Law. Section 142.11 provides that application for a training center certificate and training specifications shall be made in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator, shall provide specific information about each management, instructor position, and evaluator position, and contain certain other administrative information. Section 142.37 provides that application for approval of training programs must be in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator, and must provide specific information about curriculum and courses of the training program. PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Chapter 447, section 44701 of title 49, United States Code, provides, in pertinent part, that the Administrator may find, after investigation, that a person found to possess proper qualifications for a position as an airman may be issued such certificate. That certificate shall contain such terms, conditions, and limitations as to duration thereof, as well as periodic or special examinations, and other matters as the Administrator may determine to be necessary to assure safety in air commerce. Section 142.73 requires that training centers maintain records for a period of one year to show trainee qualifications for training, testing, or checking, training attempts, training checking, and testing results, and for one year following termination of employment the qualification of instructors and evaluators providing those services. The respondents may be the part 142 schools, part 121 or 135 air carriers who utilize these schools or new applicants seeking part 142 certification. The information may be collected in electronic forms. No specific forms are required. Information reporting may be done in accordance with the individual FAA office. Respondents: Part 142 schools, Part 121 and 135 carriers and new certifications. Frequency: On occasion. Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies per requirement. Estimated Total Annual Burden: 87,112 hours. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2023. Sandra L. Ray, Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS–260. [FR Doc. 2023–02209 Filed 2–2–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA–2021–0011] Improving Road Safety for All Users on Federal-Aid Projects Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice; request for information (RFI). AGENCY: Our priority at DOT and FHWA is to make our transportation system safe for all people. Right now, we face a crisis on our roadways. In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people across the Nation—117 people per day—lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM 03FEN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Notices This represents the highest number of fatalities since 2005. Every transportation project, whether the project’s purpose is safety-related or not, is an opportunity to improve safety. The street network including on-road and off-road facilities should provide safe, equitable, accessible, and comfortable transportation for everyone. Part of the work that DOT proposes to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation’s highways, roads, and streets is to develop a National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS). The NRSS, adopts the Safe System Approach principles to guide our safety actions, and identifies critical and significant actions DOT will take now in pursuit of five core objectives: Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles, Safer Speeds, and Post-Crash Care. As part of the actions to address the national crisis of fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, FHWA requests comments on what strategies, programmatic adjustments or regulatory changes could help improve safety on U.S. highways. Requests for comments include but are not limited to whether changes to the FHWA Design Standards regulation or other FHWA regulations are needed to facilitate the development of Complete Streets and Complete Networks that serve all users, how the safety performance of Federalaid projects should be assessed, how funding could be optimized for safety improvements, and how to include measures and collection of more data that can improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2023. ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit comments by only one of the following means: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001; • Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366–9329; • Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https:// VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Feb 02, 2023 Jkt 259001 www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice, contact: Phillip Bobitz, FHWA Office of Safety Technologies, (717) 221–4574, Phillip.Bobitz@dot.gov, or Elizabeth Hilton, Office of Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements, (202) 924– 8618, Elizabeth.Hilton@dot.gov; for legal questions contact Lev Gabrilovich, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–3813, Lev.Gabrilovich@ dot.gov. FHWA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing A copy of this notice, all comments received on this notice, and all background material may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are also available at https:// www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document also may be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register’s website at www.FederalRegister.gov and the Government Publishing Office’s website at www.GovInfo.gov. Background In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people across the Nation—117 people per day—lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes. This represents the highest number of fatalities since 2005 and is a result of increases on rural Interstates and urban roads, among younger and older drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and in other crash types.1 In January, DOT unveiled the NRSS.2 The NRSS commits DOT and FHWA to respond to the current crisis in traffic fatalities by ‘‘taking substantial, comprehensive action to significantly reduce serious and fatal injuries on the Nation’s roadways,’’ in pursuit of the goal of achieving zero highway deaths. To achieve this goal, the Department has adopted the ‘‘Safe System Approach,’’ which acknowledges both human mistakes and human vulnerability, and designs a redundant system to protect 1 Newly Released Estimates Show Traffic Fatalities Reached a 16-year High in 2021 https:// www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021traffic-fatalities#:∼:text=The%20National%20 Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,the%2038 %2C824%20fatalities%20in%202020. 2 DOT National Roadway Safety Strategy, January 2022, available at https://www.transportation.gov/ sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-NationalRoadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7511 everyone by preventing crashes and ensuring that if they do occur, they do not result in serious injury or death. The Department will use a five-pronged model to address safety: safer people, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds and post-crash care. Under the NRSS, FHWA committed to launching a Complete Streets initiative, to implement policies that prioritize the safety of all users in transportation network planning, design, construction, and operations. An important area of focus for the NRSS is the disproportionate, adverse safety impacts that affect certain groups on our roadways. Fatalities due to traffic crashes disproportionately affect communities of color, people living in rural areas, people with disabilities, and older adults. For example, fatalities among Black people increased by 23 percent between 2019 and 2020 compared to an overall increase of 7.2 percent.3 People who are American Indian and Alaska Native have roadway fatality rates more than double the national rate on a per population basis.4 Although men consistently represent more than 70 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes, when comparable crashes are analyzed and risk taking differences are accounted for, studies have shown that motor vehicle fatality risk is, on average, 17 percent higher for a female than for a male of the same age.5 The disproportionate safety impacts are especially true in underserved communities, where people face heightened exposure to risk. The 40 percent of counties with the highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced a fatality rate 35 percent higher than the national average on a per population basis.6 Traffic deaths among people who walk or bike have also become a higher proportion of fatalities. This highlights the need for a Safe System approach that not only addresses safety on roadways but also the multimodal aspect of how our infrastructure works. More information can be found about 3 NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020, June 2021, available at https:// crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ ViewPublication/813118. 4 NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2018 Final File; Population—Census Bureau. 5 NHTSA Injury Vulnerability and Effectiveness of Occupant Protection Technologies for Older Occupants and Women, May 2013, available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ ViewPublication/811766. 6 FARS 2019 data publication, 1st release; Poverty rates and Population data by County, U.S. Census. The fatality rate for the top 40 percent of counties by poverty rate was 14.9 per 100,000 population versus 11.0 for the country. E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM 03FEN1 7512 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Notices the specific commitments of the NRSS at https://www.transportation.gov/ NRSS. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Funding The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117– 58, Nov. 15, 2021), provides a historic opportunity for FHWA to work closely with State, local and Tribal partners to put increased transportation funding to work incorporating safety for all users into every federally-funded road project. FHWA encourages States and other funding recipients to prioritize safety in all Federal highway investments and in all appropriate projects, using relevant Federal-aid funding. This notice and the actions that follow are part of the solution in achieving the vision of zero fatalities. The FHWA provides financial aid (Federal-aid) to States for the improvement of Federal-aid highways through the Federal-aid highway program (FAHP). A Federal-aid highway is a public highway eligible for assistance under Chapter 1, of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), other than a highway functionally classified as a local road or rural minor collector (23 U.S.C. 101(a)(6)). Between 2016 and 2020, 85 percent 7 of all public highway fatalities occurred on Federal-aid highways, which represent 25 percent 8 of the entire public highway network. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), legislated under 23 U.S.C. 148, is the core funding program administered by FHWA under FAHP for safety, and HSIP funds are eligible for use on all public highways. State, local, and Tribal agencies mainly use HSIP funds when addressing safety; however, this dedicated source of safety funds is relatively small compared to other Federal-aid funding programs, representing only about 6 percent of the total FAHP.9 FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone 7 NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2016–2019 Final and 2020 Annual Report File (ARF) Fatalities in motor vehicle traffic crashes by year and Federal highway status. Federal-aid highways include all Land Use and Functional System attributes in FARS except: Land Use attribute 1 (rural) and Functional System attributes 06 (minor collector) and 07 (local), Land Use attribute 2 (Urban) and Functional System attribute 07 (local), and unknowns from Land Use and Functional System. 8 FHWA Highway Statistics 2019 (https:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/ 2019/hm16.cfm). 9 Federal-aid apportioned programs under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117–58, also known as the ‘‘Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’’) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ bipartisan-infrastructure-law/funding.cfm). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Feb 02, 2023 Jkt 259001 will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s highways and is seeking comments through this notice on how to include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. Examples of other FHWA formula funds that can be used for safety improvements include the National Highway Performance Program, and the Surface Transportation Block Grant program, which includes the Transportation Alternatives Set Aside funds which authorize funding for programs and projects including Safe Routes to Schools projects. The FAHP funds also may be used for any pedestrian and bicycle facility, whether on or off-road. Regulations States that receive Federal-aid under the FAHP for their Federal-aid highways must adhere to applicable Federal statutes and regulations. Among the requirements included in these statutes and regulations are requirements pertaining to the consideration of safety. For example, States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) establish and implement planning processes that provide for the consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will address the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. See 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135. In addition, 23 U.S.C. 109 requires that each Federalaid project provide facilities that are conducive to safety and specifies that the Secretary must consider the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) in developing design criteria. See 23 U.S.C. 109(a)(1) and 109(c)(2)(D). This statute also requires that the design of a highway on the National Highway System (NHS), other than a highway also on the Interstate System, consider access for other modes of transportation. 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1)(D). The FHWA’s Design Standards regulations codified in Part 625 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (23 CFR part 625 or part 625) note in 23 CFR 625.2(c) that an important goal of FHWA is to provide the highest practical and feasible level of safety for people and property associated with the Nation’s highway transportation systems. Safety Beyond Roadways Starting with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102– 240), Federal transportation laws and policies have placed increasing emphasis on improving the safety and comfort of pedestrian and bicycle travel. PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The DOT and FHWA have sought to provide travelers with a choice of transportation modes and increase the percentage of trips made by nonmotorized modes of travel. Statutory changes have established broad eligibility of bicycle and pedestrian facilities for Federal-aid funding. See 23 U.S.C. 133(h), 206, 208, and 217. However, an increasing portion of highway fatalities are people outside of automobiles, primarily pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists, and in 2021 these modes made up more than one-third of all traffic fatalities.10 The House Report accompanying the DOT, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 2021 requested a report from FHWA reviewing its current policies, rules, and procedures to determine their impact on safety for road users, particularly those outside of automobiles. FHWA delivered this report, ‘‘Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities and Challenges,’’ in March 2022.11 Potential solutions proposed in the report include the issuance of guidance to help ensure that FHWA design standards are interpreted and applied to better consider safety for all users, and the identification of methods to increase the assessment of safety outcomes across all types of Federal-aid projects to improve safety performance. Specific actions under these solutions include requesting information from stakeholders. Accordingly, FHWA requests comments on two specific areas of the FAHP: (1) the design of roads on the NHS; and (2) how the safety performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed and how to include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. Design Standards for the NHS The FHWA requests information to inform efforts to develop road designs for all users that can reduce motor vehicle-related crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist risk, and encourage walking and bicycling for transportation by incorporating well-designed multimodal infrastructure. The BIL defines ‘‘Complete Streets standards or policies’’ as those which ‘‘ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all users of the transportation system, 10 NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And Fatality Rate by SubCategories in 2021, May 2022, available at https:// crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ ViewPublication/813298. 11 Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities and Challenges (dot.gov). E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM 03FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles.’’ 12 Complete Streets prioritize safety, comfort, and connectivity to destinations for people who use the surface transportation network and reduce motor vehicle-related crashes and pedestrian and bicyclist risk by incorporating well-designed multimodal infrastructure. They also can promote walking and bicycling by providing safer places to achieve physical activity through transportation.13 Many State and local governments have adopted Complete Streets policies, ordinances, or laws to integrate people and place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of our transportation networks.14 The FHWA Design Standards regulations in Part 625 govern design standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS. The NHS consists of roadways important to the Nation’s economy, defense, and mobility, including all Interstate highways, other principal arterials, as well as other highways and city streets. Part 625 impacts the design of city streets that are on the NHS, regardless of ownership or project funding.15 Part 625 incorporates several publications by reference, including AASHTO publication, A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets (Green Book). The Green Book provides a range of acceptable values for geometric features, allowing for flexibility that best suits the context and vision of the community while satisfying the purpose for the project and needs of all users. When the design standards in Part 625 are not met, FHWA, or a State department of transportation (State DOT) that has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement, may consider design exceptions. 12 U.S. Congress. ‘‘H.R. 3684—Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.’’, Section 11206(a), Accessed November 2021. 13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Guide to Preventative Services, accessed December 23, 2021, available at https:// www.thecommunityguide.org/resources/one-pagerbuilt-environment-approaches-increase-physicalactivity. 14 Smart Growth America website, accessed on November 3, 2021, available at https:// smartgrowthamerica.org/program/nationalcomplete-streets-coalition/. 15 FHWA website on the NHS, including maps in each State, accessed on November 3, 2021, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_ highway_system/nhs_maps/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Feb 02, 2023 Jkt 259001 Traffic Control Device standards are not covered by Part 625, but by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR 655, and is not a design standard. A Notice of Proposed Amendments to the MUTCD was issued for public comment 16 as part of a rulemaking. Development of a Final Rule to issue a new edition of the MUTCD is underway and this request is not seeking comments on the MUTCD. Data-Driven Safety Assessments Many State DOTs have developed tools, policies, and procedures to assess and analyze the safety performance of their existing facilities and projects, and to determine project alternatives and countermeasures that yield optimal safety performance, thus contributing to reduced fatalities and serious injuries on their transportation systems. These tools, policies and procedures include the use of Data-Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA) techniques that inform State DOTs’ and local agencies’ decisionmaking and target investments that improve safety and equity. DDSA is the application of the latest evidencebased tools and approaches to assess an existing or proposed transportation facility’s future safety performance, including the use of AASHTO’s HSM.17 Accordingly, safety is a required consideration in the development of a highway project for funding under the FAHP. Also, FHWA has taken various steps to further the consideration of safety in project development. However, in the wake of the recent trends related to fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, more needs to be done. Therefore, FHWA is interested in hearing from the public on a range of questions related to whether changes to Part 625 or other regulations codified in Title 23 of the CFR are needed, how the safety performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed, and how to include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. The FHWA may use the information gathered through the public comments to consider future rulemaking options related to the design standards for projects on the NHS or for safety performance assessments on Federal-aid projects, or to develop resources (i.e., case studies, informational briefs, etc.) that can assist agencies with improving safety for all users when developing projects regardless of funding source. 16 85 FR 80898, December 14, 2020. HSM, 1st ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2010, is available at https:// www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx. 17 AASHTO PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7513 For purposes of this RFI and as referenced throughout the questions, a safety performance assessment involves the application of analytical tools and techniques for quantifying the potential effects of transportation investment decisions in terms of crash frequency and severity. Request for Comments and Information The FHWA requests comments on the following questions. Please indicate in your written comments which question(s) you are answering. Improving Road Safety for All Users 1. What steps are being taken by your agency (if you are commenting on behalf of an agency) or an agency you are familiar with to improve safety for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles? How are equity and demographic data considered? 2. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or policies (or similar policies), what benefits does your agency see in developing Complete Streets? Provide examples and citations to relevant regulations, policies, procedures, performance measures, or other materials where possible. 3. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or policies (or similar policies), what challenges has your agency experienced when implementing your Complete Streets policy? 4. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or policies (or similar policies), but have not adopted an alternative classification system, how do you identify the appropriate context(s) for the application of a complete streets design model? Under what types of circumstances have you found the development of Complete Streets to be inappropriate? 5. To inform decisions on street design, some agencies 18 have adopted modal hierarchies, or alternative street classification systems, that prioritize pedestrians, bicyclists, or others on certain street types based on context.19 Has your agency incorporated such a hierarchy, or classification into agency policies, and if so, what benefits have 18 Example: Portland, Oregon, uses the prioritization of modes shown on p. 4 at https:// www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/tsp101-two-pager-03-21-2019.pdf. 19 Example: Florida DOT Context Classification Guide, Figure 15. https://fdotwww.blob. core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/ roadway/completestreets/files/fdot-contextclassification.pdf?sfvrsn=12be90da_4. E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM 03FEN1 7514 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Notices been realized? Please provide a link to your documents for reference. Design Standards for the NHS 6. How could the FHWA regulations governing Design Standards for Highways (Part 625) be revised to consistently support prioritization of the safety of all users across all project types? 7. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR are needed to equitably improve safety for people of all ages and abilities who use urban and suburban streets? 8. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR are needed to equitably improve safety for people of all ages and abilities who use rural roadways, including in rural towns? 9. What, if any, elements of design are not adequately covered by the existing design standards in Part 625? 10. What specific provisions of Part 625 present an obstacle to equitably improving safety for people outside of vehicles, and why? 11. Are there additional documents that FHWA should incorporate by reference in Part 625 to better facilitate the context-sensitive design of streets that safely serve all users? Please identify the documents and describe why they should be referenced in the regulation. 12. Does Part 625 create any impediments to developing projects that meet the goals of your agency? If so, what goals are impeded, what are the impediments, and how would you suggest the regulation be revised? Safety Performance Assessment Applicability lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 13. For which current projects (i.e., by improvement type, funding program/ level, facility type, etc.) are safety performance assessments or analyses conducted in your State? 14. To what extent is the safety performance assessed on non-HSIP funded projects? 15. What policies or procedures on conducting project-specific safety performance assessments and analyses does your agency have? Provide examples and citations to relevant laws, regulations, policies, procedures, or other materials where possible. Conducting a Safety Performance Assessment 16. What methods, tools, and types of safety performance assessments are used to analyze project-specific safety performance? What are the minimum data and analysis requirements that should be considered on how to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Feb 02, 2023 Jkt 259001 conduct a safety performance assessment? 17. With whom do States engage (i.e. counties, cities, MPOs, rural planning organizations, and other political subdivisions) when assessing safety performance? How do States engage the public or use the safety performance assessment results to communicate to the public using inclusive and representative processes? 18. How are safety performance assessments integrated into the overall project development cycle? At which stage(s) of the project development process (e.g., planning and programming, environmental analysis, design, operations and maintenance) are project-specific safety performance assessments conducted? Are evaluations conducted after the project has been implemented? Responses may include examples of projects where safety performance assessments were conducted and how they informed the final project deliverables. 19. How is safety performance assessed or considered at the system level planning or early transportation project identification/prioritization stage? How is network screening used to inform project decisionmaking? Safety Performance Assessment Process Evaluation and Outcomes 20. What indicators or measures have been used to determine the effectiveness of safety performance assessments? 21. To what extent is the safety performance assessment or analysis used to inform project decisionmaking? How is safety performance weighted in relation to factors such as environmental impact or traffic congestion? Are there requirements to include countermeasures or evaluation of alternative designs that are expected to improve safety performance? If yes, please provide examples of the requirements or projects where the safety performance assessment led to the implementation of countermeasures and strategies that improved safety performance. 22. How is safety performance evaluated after the project is implemented? To what extent are countermeasures, alternative designs, or strategies to improve safety performance replicated on other projects, based on past project evaluations? Safety Performance Assessment Implementation Considerations 23. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible Federal requirements for safety performance assessments on certain Federal-aid projects? PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible Federal requirements for implementing costeffective safety improvements resulting from safety performance assessments? 25. What benefits does your agency see with possible Federal requirements for safety performance assessments on certain Federal-aid projects where safety may not be the sole motivation for the project? What benefits does your agency see for any Federal requirements for cost-effective safety improvements resulting from the assessments? 26. What criteria, thresholds, characteristics, or other factors should States consider when determining when to conduct a project-specific safety performance assessment or analysis for projects on the Federal-aid highway system? 27. What additional resources (i.e., staff, guidance, tools, budget, etc.) would be necessary to adequately assess the expected safety performance of Federal-aid projects? Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103, 109, 134, 135 and 402; Sec. 1404 of Pub. L. 114– 94, 129 Stat. 1312; 49 CFR 1.85; 23 CFR part 625. Signed in Washington, DC. Gloria M. Shepherd, Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration. [FR Doc. 2023–02285 Filed 2–2–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2022–0133] Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of an Approved Information Collection: 391.41 CMV Driver Medication Form Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the renewal Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, ‘‘391.41 CMV Driver Medication Form.’’ This Information Collection (IC) is voluntary and may be utilized by Medical Examiners (MEs) responsible for issuing Medical Examiner’s SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM 03FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7510-7514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA-2021-0011]


Improving Road Safety for All Users on Federal-Aid Projects

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: Our priority at DOT and FHWA is to make our transportation 
system safe for all people. Right now, we face a crisis on our 
roadways. In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people across the Nation--117 
people per day--lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes.

[[Page 7511]]

This represents the highest number of fatalities since 2005. Every 
transportation project, whether the project's purpose is safety-related 
or not, is an opportunity to improve safety. The street network 
including on-road and off-road facilities should provide safe, 
equitable, accessible, and comfortable transportation for everyone. 
Part of the work that DOT proposes to significantly reduce fatalities 
and serious injuries on our Nation's highways, roads, and streets is to 
develop a National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS). The NRSS, adopts the 
Safe System Approach principles to guide our safety actions, and 
identifies critical and significant actions DOT will take now in 
pursuit of five core objectives: Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer 
Vehicles, Safer Speeds, and Post-Crash Care. As part of the actions to 
address the national crisis of fatalities and serious injuries on our 
roadways, FHWA requests comments on what strategies, programmatic 
adjustments or regulatory changes could help improve safety on U.S. 
highways. Requests for comments include but are not limited to whether 
changes to the FHWA Design Standards regulation or other FHWA 
regulations are needed to facilitate the development of Complete 
Streets and Complete Networks that serve all users, how the safety 
performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed, how funding 
could be optimized for safety improvements, and how to include measures 
and collection of more data that can improve safety performance across 
Federal-aid projects.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, 
please submit comments by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is (202) 366-9329;
     Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket 
number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking 
at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice, 
contact: Phillip Bobitz, FHWA Office of Safety Technologies, (717) 221-
4574, dot.gov">[email protected]dot.gov, or Elizabeth Hilton, Office of 
Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements, (202) 924-8618, 
dot.gov">[email protected]dot.gov; for legal questions contact Lev Gabrilovich, 
FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-3813, 
dot.gov">[email protected]dot.gov. FHWA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of this notice, all comments received on this notice, and 
all background material may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic 
retrieval help and guidelines are also available at https://www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document also may be 
downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at 
www.FederalRegister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website 
at www.GovInfo.gov.

Background

    In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people across the Nation--117 people 
per day--lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes. This represents the 
highest number of fatalities since 2005 and is a result of increases on 
rural Interstates and urban roads, among younger and older drivers, 
pedestrians and bicyclists, and in other crash types.\1\ In January, 
DOT unveiled the NRSS.\2\ The NRSS commits DOT and FHWA to respond to 
the current crisis in traffic fatalities by ``taking substantial, 
comprehensive action to significantly reduce serious and fatal injuries 
on the Nation's roadways,'' in pursuit of the goal of achieving zero 
highway deaths. To achieve this goal, the Department has adopted the 
``Safe System Approach,'' which acknowledges both human mistakes and 
human vulnerability, and designs a redundant system to protect everyone 
by preventing crashes and ensuring that if they do occur, they do not 
result in serious injury or death. The Department will use a five-
pronged model to address safety: safer people, safer roads, safer 
vehicles, safer speeds and post-crash care. Under the NRSS, FHWA 
committed to launching a Complete Streets initiative, to implement 
policies that prioritize the safety of all users in transportation 
network planning, design, construction, and operations. An important 
area of focus for the NRSS is the disproportionate, adverse safety 
impacts that affect certain groups on our roadways. Fatalities due to 
traffic crashes disproportionately affect communities of color, people 
living in rural areas, people with disabilities, and older adults. For 
example, fatalities among Black people increased by 23 percent between 
2019 and 2020 compared to an overall increase of 7.2 percent.\3\ People 
who are American Indian and Alaska Native have roadway fatality rates 
more than double the national rate on a per population basis.\4\ 
Although men consistently represent more than 70 percent of drivers 
involved in fatal crashes, when comparable crashes are analyzed and 
risk taking differences are accounted for, studies have shown that 
motor vehicle fatality risk is, on average, 17 percent higher for a 
female than for a male of the same age.\5\ The disproportionate safety 
impacts are especially true in underserved communities, where people 
face heightened exposure to risk. The 40 percent of counties with the 
highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced a fatality rate 35 percent 
higher than the national average on a per population basis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Newly Released Estimates Show Traffic Fatalities Reached a 
16-year High in 2021 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-
estimate-2021-traffic-
fatalities#:~:text=The%20National%20Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,the%20
38%2C824%20fatalities%20in%202020.
    \2\ DOT National Roadway Safety Strategy, January 2022, 
available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf.
    \3\ NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities 
And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020, June 2021, available at 
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118.
    \4\ NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2018 Final 
File; Population--Census Bureau.
    \5\ NHTSA Injury Vulnerability and Effectiveness of Occupant 
Protection Technologies for Older Occupants and Women, May 2013, 
available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811766.
    \6\ FARS 2019 data publication, 1st release; Poverty rates and 
Population data by County, U.S. Census. The fatality rate for the 
top 40 percent of counties by poverty rate was 14.9 per 100,000 
population versus 11.0 for the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traffic deaths among people who walk or bike have also become a 
higher proportion of fatalities. This highlights the need for a Safe 
System approach that not only addresses safety on roadways but also the 
multimodal aspect of how our infrastructure works. More information can 
be found about

[[Page 7512]]

the specific commitments of the NRSS at https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS.

Funding

    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Nov. 15, 2021), 
provides a historic opportunity for FHWA to work closely with State, 
local and Tribal partners to put increased transportation funding to 
work incorporating safety for all users into every federally-funded 
road project. FHWA encourages States and other funding recipients to 
prioritize safety in all Federal highway investments and in all 
appropriate projects, using relevant Federal-aid funding. This notice 
and the actions that follow are part of the solution in achieving the 
vision of zero fatalities.
    The FHWA provides financial aid (Federal-aid) to States for the 
improvement of Federal-aid highways through the Federal-aid highway 
program (FAHP). A Federal-aid highway is a public highway eligible for 
assistance under Chapter 1, of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), 
other than a highway functionally classified as a local road or rural 
minor collector (23 U.S.C. 101(a)(6)).
    Between 2016 and 2020, 85 percent \7\ of all public highway 
fatalities occurred on Federal-aid highways, which represent 25 percent 
\8\ of the entire public highway network. The Highway Safety 
Improvement Program (HSIP), legislated under 23 U.S.C. 148, is the core 
funding program administered by FHWA under FAHP for safety, and HSIP 
funds are eligible for use on all public highways. State, local, and 
Tribal agencies mainly use HSIP funds when addressing safety; however, 
this dedicated source of safety funds is relatively small compared to 
other Federal-aid funding programs, representing only about 6 percent 
of the total FAHP.\9\ FHWA recognizes that the funding available 
through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the 
Nation's highways and is seeking comments through this notice on how to 
include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid 
projects. Examples of other FHWA formula funds that can be used for 
safety improvements include the National Highway Performance Program, 
and the Surface Transportation Block Grant program, which includes the 
Transportation Alternatives Set Aside funds which authorize funding for 
programs and projects including Safe Routes to Schools projects. The 
FAHP funds also may be used for any pedestrian and bicycle facility, 
whether on or off-road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2016-2019 
Final and 2020 Annual Report File (ARF) Fatalities in motor vehicle 
traffic crashes by year and Federal highway status. Federal-aid 
highways include all Land Use and Functional System attributes in 
FARS except: Land Use attribute 1 (rural) and Functional System 
attributes 06 (minor collector) and 07 (local), Land Use attribute 2 
(Urban) and Functional System attribute 07 (local), and unknowns 
from Land Use and Functional System.
    \8\ FHWA Highway Statistics 2019 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/hm16.cfm).
    \9\ Federal-aid apportioned programs under the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58, also known as the 
``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'') (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/funding.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulations

    States that receive Federal-aid under the FAHP for their Federal-
aid highways must adhere to applicable Federal statutes and 
regulations. Among the requirements included in these statutes and 
regulations are requirements pertaining to the consideration of safety. 
For example, States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) 
establish and implement planning processes that provide for the 
consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services 
that will address the safety of the transportation system for motorized 
and nonmotorized users. See 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135. In addition, 23 
U.S.C. 109 requires that each Federal-aid project provide facilities 
that are conducive to safety and specifies that the Secretary must 
consider the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) in developing design 
criteria. See 23 U.S.C. 109(a)(1) and 109(c)(2)(D). This statute also 
requires that the design of a highway on the National Highway System 
(NHS), other than a highway also on the Interstate System, consider 
access for other modes of transportation. 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1)(D). The 
FHWA's Design Standards regulations codified in Part 625 of Title 23 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (23 CFR part 625 or part 625) 
note in 23 CFR 625.2(c) that an important goal of FHWA is to provide 
the highest practical and feasible level of safety for people and 
property associated with the Nation's highway transportation systems.

Safety Beyond Roadways

    Starting with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240), Federal 
transportation laws and policies have placed increasing emphasis on 
improving the safety and comfort of pedestrian and bicycle travel. The 
DOT and FHWA have sought to provide travelers with a choice of 
transportation modes and increase the percentage of trips made by 
nonmotorized modes of travel. Statutory changes have established broad 
eligibility of bicycle and pedestrian facilities for Federal-aid 
funding. See 23 U.S.C. 133(h), 206, 208, and 217. However, an 
increasing portion of highway fatalities are people outside of 
automobiles, primarily pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists, and 
in 2021 these modes made up more than one-third of all traffic 
fatalities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities 
And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, May 2022, available at 
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House Report accompanying the DOT, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 2021 
requested a report from FHWA reviewing its current policies, rules, and 
procedures to determine their impact on safety for road users, 
particularly those outside of automobiles. FHWA delivered this report, 
``Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on 
Opportunities and Challenges,'' in March 2022.\11\ Potential solutions 
proposed in the report include the issuance of guidance to help ensure 
that FHWA design standards are interpreted and applied to better 
consider safety for all users, and the identification of methods to 
increase the assessment of safety outcomes across all types of Federal-
aid projects to improve safety performance. Specific actions under 
these solutions include requesting information from stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to 
Congress on Opportunities and Challenges (dot.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FHWA requests comments on two specific areas of the 
FAHP: (1) the design of roads on the NHS; and (2) how the safety 
performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed and how to 
include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid 
projects.

Design Standards for the NHS

    The FHWA requests information to inform efforts to develop road 
designs for all users that can reduce motor vehicle-related crashes, 
pedestrian and bicyclist risk, and encourage walking and bicycling for 
transportation by incorporating well-designed multimodal 
infrastructure. The BIL defines ``Complete Streets standards or 
policies'' as those which ``ensure the safe and adequate accommodation 
of all users of the transportation system,

[[Page 7513]]

including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, 
children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, 
and freight vehicles.'' \12\ Complete Streets prioritize safety, 
comfort, and connectivity to destinations for people who use the 
surface transportation network and reduce motor vehicle-related crashes 
and pedestrian and bicyclist risk by incorporating well-designed 
multimodal infrastructure. They also can promote walking and bicycling 
by providing safer places to achieve physical activity through 
transportation.\13\ Many State and local governments have adopted 
Complete Streets policies, ordinances, or laws to integrate people and 
place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance 
of our transportation networks.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Congress. ``H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act.'', Section 11206(a), Accessed November 2021.
    \13\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Guide 
to Preventative Services, accessed December 23, 2021, available at 
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/resources/one-pager-built-environment-approaches-increase-physical-activity.
    \14\ Smart Growth America website, accessed on November 3, 2021, 
available at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA Design Standards regulations in Part 625 govern design 
standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction, 
reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), 
restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS. The NHS consists 
of roadways important to the Nation's economy, defense, and mobility, 
including all Interstate highways, other principal arterials, as well 
as other highways and city streets. Part 625 impacts the design of city 
streets that are on the NHS, regardless of ownership or project 
funding.\15\ Part 625 incorporates several publications by reference, 
including AASHTO publication, A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and 
Streets (Green Book). The Green Book provides a range of acceptable 
values for geometric features, allowing for flexibility that best suits 
the context and vision of the community while satisfying the purpose 
for the project and needs of all users. When the design standards in 
Part 625 are not met, FHWA, or a State department of transportation 
(State DOT) that has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship 
and Oversight agreement, may consider design exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FHWA website on the NHS, including maps in each State, 
accessed on November 3, 2021, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traffic Control Device standards are not covered by Part 625, but 
by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD). The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR 655, 
and is not a design standard. A Notice of Proposed Amendments to the 
MUTCD was issued for public comment \16\ as part of a rulemaking. 
Development of a Final Rule to issue a new edition of the MUTCD is 
underway and this request is not seeking comments on the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 85 FR 80898, December 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data-Driven Safety Assessments

    Many State DOTs have developed tools, policies, and procedures to 
assess and analyze the safety performance of their existing facilities 
and projects, and to determine project alternatives and countermeasures 
that yield optimal safety performance, thus contributing to reduced 
fatalities and serious injuries on their transportation systems. These 
tools, policies and procedures include the use of Data-Driven Safety 
Analysis (DDSA) techniques that inform State DOTs' and local agencies' 
decisionmaking and target investments that improve safety and equity. 
DDSA is the application of the latest evidence-based tools and 
approaches to assess an existing or proposed transportation facility's 
future safety performance, including the use of AASHTO's HSM.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AASHTO HSM, 1st ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2010, is 
available at https://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, safety is a required consideration in the development 
of a highway project for funding under the FAHP. Also, FHWA has taken 
various steps to further the consideration of safety in project 
development. However, in the wake of the recent trends related to 
fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, more needs to be done. 
Therefore, FHWA is interested in hearing from the public on a range of 
questions related to whether changes to Part 625 or other regulations 
codified in Title 23 of the CFR are needed, how the safety performance 
of Federal-aid projects should be assessed, and how to include measures 
that improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. The FHWA 
may use the information gathered through the public comments to 
consider future rulemaking options related to the design standards for 
projects on the NHS or for safety performance assessments on Federal-
aid projects, or to develop resources (i.e., case studies, 
informational briefs, etc.) that can assist agencies with improving 
safety for all users when developing projects regardless of funding 
source.
    For purposes of this RFI and as referenced throughout the 
questions, a safety performance assessment involves the application of 
analytical tools and techniques for quantifying the potential effects 
of transportation investment decisions in terms of crash frequency and 
severity.

Request for Comments and Information

    The FHWA requests comments on the following questions. Please 
indicate in your written comments which question(s) you are answering.

Improving Road Safety for All Users

    1. What steps are being taken by your agency (if you are commenting 
on behalf of an agency) or an agency you are familiar with to improve 
safety for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public 
transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with 
disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles? How are equity and 
demographic data considered?
    2. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or 
policies (or similar policies), what benefits does your agency see in 
developing Complete Streets? Provide examples and citations to relevant 
regulations, policies, procedures, performance measures, or other 
materials where possible.
    3. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or 
policies (or similar policies), what challenges has your agency 
experienced when implementing your Complete Streets policy?
    4. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or 
policies (or similar policies), but have not adopted an alternative 
classification system, how do you identify the appropriate context(s) 
for the application of a complete streets design model? Under what 
types of circumstances have you found the development of Complete 
Streets to be inappropriate?
    5. To inform decisions on street design, some agencies \18\ have 
adopted modal hierarchies, or alternative street classification 
systems, that prioritize pedestrians, bicyclists, or others on certain 
street types based on context.\19\ Has your agency incorporated such a 
hierarchy, or classification into agency policies, and if so, what 
benefits have

[[Page 7514]]

been realized? Please provide a link to your documents for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Example: Portland, Oregon, uses the prioritization of modes 
shown on p. 4 at https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/tsp-101-two-pager-03-21-2019.pdf.
    \19\ Example: Florida DOT Context Classification Guide, Figure 
15. https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/roadway/completestreets/files/fdot-context-classification.pdf?sfvrsn=12be90da_4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Design Standards for the NHS

    6. How could the FHWA regulations governing Design Standards for 
Highways (Part 625) be revised to consistently support prioritization 
of the safety of all users across all project types?
    7. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR 
are needed to equitably improve safety for people of all ages and 
abilities who use urban and suburban streets?
    8. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR 
are needed to equitably improve safety for people of all ages and 
abilities who use rural roadways, including in rural towns?
    9. What, if any, elements of design are not adequately covered by 
the existing design standards in Part 625?
    10. What specific provisions of Part 625 present an obstacle to 
equitably improving safety for people outside of vehicles, and why?
    11. Are there additional documents that FHWA should incorporate by 
reference in Part 625 to better facilitate the context-sensitive design 
of streets that safely serve all users? Please identify the documents 
and describe why they should be referenced in the regulation.
    12. Does Part 625 create any impediments to developing projects 
that meet the goals of your agency? If so, what goals are impeded, what 
are the impediments, and how would you suggest the regulation be 
revised?

Safety Performance Assessment Applicability

    13. For which current projects (i.e., by improvement type, funding 
program/level, facility type, etc.) are safety performance assessments 
or analyses conducted in your State?
    14. To what extent is the safety performance assessed on non-HSIP 
funded projects?
    15. What policies or procedures on conducting project-specific 
safety performance assessments and analyses does your agency have? 
Provide examples and citations to relevant laws, regulations, policies, 
procedures, or other materials where possible.

Conducting a Safety Performance Assessment

    16. What methods, tools, and types of safety performance 
assessments are used to analyze project-specific safety performance? 
What are the minimum data and analysis requirements that should be 
considered on how to conduct a safety performance assessment?
    17. With whom do States engage (i.e. counties, cities, MPOs, rural 
planning organizations, and other political subdivisions) when 
assessing safety performance? How do States engage the public or use 
the safety performance assessment results to communicate to the public 
using inclusive and representative processes?
    18. How are safety performance assessments integrated into the 
overall project development cycle? At which stage(s) of the project 
development process (e.g., planning and programming, environmental 
analysis, design, operations and maintenance) are project-specific 
safety performance assessments conducted? Are evaluations conducted 
after the project has been implemented? Responses may include examples 
of projects where safety performance assessments were conducted and how 
they informed the final project deliverables.
    19. How is safety performance assessed or considered at the system 
level planning or early transportation project identification/
prioritization stage? How is network screening used to inform project 
decisionmaking?

Safety Performance Assessment Process Evaluation and Outcomes

    20. What indicators or measures have been used to determine the 
effectiveness of safety performance assessments?
    21. To what extent is the safety performance assessment or analysis 
used to inform project decisionmaking? How is safety performance 
weighted in relation to factors such as environmental impact or traffic 
congestion? Are there requirements to include countermeasures or 
evaluation of alternative designs that are expected to improve safety 
performance? If yes, please provide examples of the requirements or 
projects where the safety performance assessment led to the 
implementation of countermeasures and strategies that improved safety 
performance.
    22. How is safety performance evaluated after the project is 
implemented? To what extent are countermeasures, alternative designs, 
or strategies to improve safety performance replicated on other 
projects, based on past project evaluations?

Safety Performance Assessment Implementation Considerations

    23. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible 
Federal requirements for safety performance assessments on certain 
Federal-aid projects?
    24. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible 
Federal requirements for implementing cost-effective safety 
improvements resulting from safety performance assessments?
    25. What benefits does your agency see with possible Federal 
requirements for safety performance assessments on certain Federal-aid 
projects where safety may not be the sole motivation for the project? 
What benefits does your agency see for any Federal requirements for 
cost-effective safety improvements resulting from the assessments?
    26. What criteria, thresholds, characteristics, or other factors 
should States consider when determining when to conduct a project-
specific safety performance assessment or analysis for projects on the 
Federal-aid highway system?
    27. What additional resources (i.e., staff, guidance, tools, 
budget, etc.) would be necessary to adequately assess the expected 
safety performance of Federal-aid projects?
    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103, 109, 134, 135 and 402; Sec. 1404 of Pub. 
L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312; 49 CFR 1.85; 23 CFR part 625.

    Signed in Washington, DC.
Gloria M. Shepherd,
Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-02285 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.