13000 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

purposes of SBREFA. We solicit 

comment and empirical data on: 

• The potential effect on the U.S. 

economy on an annual basis; 

• Any potential increase in costs or 

prices for consumers or individual 

industries; and 

• Any potential effect on competition, 

investment, or innovation. 

Commenters are requested to provide 

empirical data and other factual support 

for their views to the extent possible. 

Statutory Authority 

The new rule contained in this release 

is being proposed under the authority 

set forth in the Investment Company 

Act, particularly sections 3 and 38 

thereof [15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.] and the 

Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, 

and Consumer Protection Act of 2018, 

particularly section 504 thereof [115 

Pub. L. 174, 132 Stat. 1296]. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 270 

Investment companies, Securities. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

we are proposing to amend title 17, 

chapter II of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 270—RULES AND 

REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT 

COMPANY ACT OF 1940 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 270 continues to read, in part, as 

follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq., 80a– 

34(d), 80a–37, 80a–39, and Pub. L. 111–203, 

sec. 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), unless 

otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 2. Section 270.3c–7 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 270.3c–7 Inflation-adjusted definition of 

qualifying venture capital fund. 

(a) Inflation-adjusted definition of 

qualifying venture capital fund. For 

purposes of section 3(c)(1)(C)(i) of the 

Act (15 U.S.C. 80a–3(c)(1)(C)(i)), the 

term qualifying venture capital fund 

means a venture capital fund (as that 

term is defined in 17 CFR 275.203(1)– 

1 or any successor regulation) that has 

not more than $12,000,000 in aggregate 

capital contributions and uncalled 

committed capital, or, following [DATE 

FIVE YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], the dollar amount 

specified in the most recent order issued 

by the Commission in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section and as 

published in the Federal Register. 

(b) Future inflation adjustments. 

Pursuant to section 3(c)(1)(C)(i) of the 

Act (15 U.S.C. 80a–3(c)(1)(C)(i)), the 

dollar amount specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section shall be adjusted by order 

of the Commission, issued on or about 

[DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] and 

approximately every five years 

thereafter. The adjusted dollar amount 

established in such orders shall be 

computed by: 

(1) Dividing the year-end value of the 

Personal Consumption Expenditures 

Chain-Type Price Index (or any 

successor index thereto), as published 

by the United States Department of 

Commerce, for the calendar year 

preceding the calendar year in which 

the order is being issued, by the yearend value of such index (or successor) 

for the calendar year 2018; and 

(2) Multiplying $10,000,000 times the 

quotient obtained in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section and rounding the product to 

the nearest multiple of $1,000,000. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: February 14, 2024. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03436 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 924 

[Docket No. FHWA–2023–0045] 

RIN 2125–AG07 

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to 

update the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) 

regulations to address provisions in the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(IIJA) (also known as the ‘‘Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law’’ (BIL)) and reflect 

current priorities and state-of-practice. 

Specifically, FHWA proposes to amend 

the regulatory language to incorporate 

the Safe System Approach, clarify the 

scope of the HSIP to focus on the safety 

of all road users on the entire public 

road network, improve evaluation 

practices, streamline reporting efforts, 

and ensure States are collecting Model 

Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) 

fundamental data elements. The 

proposed changes would clarify 

provisions regarding the planning, 

implementation, evaluation, and 

reporting of HSIPs that are administered 

in each State. These changes would 

further strengthen and advance the 

safety and equity priorities of the DOT 

National Roadway Safety Strategy 

(NRSS) and assist States with making 

safety gains designed to eliminate 

fatalities and serious injuries on the 

Nation’s roads. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 22, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Dockets Management 

Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, or submit 

electronically at www.regulations.gov. 

All comments should include the 

docket number that appears in the 

heading of this document. All 

comments received will be available for 

examination and copying at the above 

address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., E.T., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Those desiring notification of 

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or may 

print the acknowledgment page that 

appears after submitting comments 

electronically. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70, Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Karen Scurry, Office of Safety, (202) 

897–7168, karen.scurry@dot.gov; or Mr. 

David Serody, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, (202) 366–4241, david.serody@

dot.gov, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or access all 

comments received by the DOT online 

through: www.regulations.gov. 

Electronic submission and retrieval help 

and guidelines are available on the 

website. It is available 24 hours each 

day, 365 days each year. Please follow 

the instructions. An electronic copy of 

this document may also be downloaded 

from the Federal Register’s home page 

at: www.federalregister.gov. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13001 

1National Roadway Safety Strategy | U.S. 

Department of Transportation https://

www.transportation.gov/NRSS. 

2USDOT Releases New Data Showing That Road 

Fatalities Spiked in First Half of 2021 | NHTSA. 

3 Integrating The Safe System Approach With The 

Highway Safety Improvement Program: An 

Informational Report (dot.gov) FHWA–SA–20–018. 

4Office of Management and Budget. Circular A– 

4, Regulatory Analysis. 68 FR 58366, October 9, 

2003. 

5National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) database, (2020 data based on FARS data 

publication, 1st release.) https://www-fars.nhtsa.

dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 

6NHTSA, Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in 

2020. (2022, March). DOT HS 813 266 https://crash

stats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/ 

813266. 

7NHTSA, FARS database, (2020 data based on 

FARS data publication, 1st release.) https://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 

Executive Summary 

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The FHWA proposes to update the 

HSIP regulations to reflect the changes 

to HSIP made in BIL (Pub. L. 117–58), 

further strengthen and advance the 

Department’s safety and equity 

priorities consistent with the NRSS,1

and assist States with making safety 

gains designed to eliminate fatalities 

and serious injuries on the Nation’s 

roads. The Department recognizes that 

the current status of traffic fatalities in 

the United States is unacceptable 2 and 

has adopted the Safe System Approach 

as the guiding paradigm to address 

roadway safety and achieve the goal of 

zero roadway fatalities and serious 

injuries in the NRSS. 

The Safe System Approach is a 

worldwide movement that has been in 

place for more than 30 years. The Safe 

System Approach requires a paradigm 

shift in how road safety is addressed for 

all users. Whereas traditional road 

safety strives to modify human behavior 

and prevent all crashes, the Safe System 

Approach refocuses transportation 

system design and operation on 

anticipating human mistakes and 

lessening impact forces on the human 

body to reduce crash severity and save 

lives. It is based on a shared 

responsibility and emphasizes that all 

stakeholders have a role to play in 

ensuring that crashes do not lead to fatal 

or serious injuries. 

The HSIP is a key place to integrate 

the Safe System Approach as it sets the 

funding and policy tone for national 

roadway safety implementation efforts. 

Therefore, FHWA proposes updates to 

the HSIP regulation to include 

regulatory language to incorporate the 

Safe System Approach. The proposed 

changes are based on the opportunities 

identified in the NRSS and 

informational report on Integrating the 

Safe System Approach with the HSIP.3

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action in Question 

The purpose of this NPRM is to 

update the HSIP regulations to 

incorporate the Safe System Approach, 

clarify the scope of the HSIP to focus on 

the safety of all road users on the entire 

public road network, improve 

evaluation practices, streamline 

reporting efforts, and ensure States are 

collecting MIRE fundamental data 

elements. Specifically, this rulemaking 

proposes to amend FHWA’s regulations 

to incorporate the Safe System 

Approach by revising the policy of the 

HSIP regulation to focus on advancing 

a Safe System Approach in support of 

the long-term goal to eliminate fatalities 

and serious injuries, emphasize how a 

State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) can support a Safe System 

Approach, clarify that a State’s SHSP 

must include a vulnerable road user 

safety assessment in accordance with 23 

U.S.C. 148(l), and require each State to 

conduct a systemwide safety risk 

assessment as part of its HSIP data 

analysis process. This rulemaking also 

proposes to clarify throughout the 

regulation that the HSIP applies to all 

public roads and for all road users and 

ensure a State’s HSIP process meet 

legislative requirements, including 

those added by BIL. The FHWA also 

proposes to improve HSIP evaluation 

practices by requiring each State to 

establish a process to evaluate the 

effectiveness of data improvement 

activities for MIRE fundamental data 

elements and clarifying that HSIP 

evaluation shall include individual 

project evaluations, countermeasure 

evaluations, and program evaluations. 

To streamline HSIP reporting efforts, 

FHWA proposes to update the required 

content of the annual HSIP report to 

minimize duplication and focus on 

progress implementing highway safety 

improvement projects and the 

effectiveness of those projects. Finally, 

to ensure States are collecting the 

required MIRE fundamental data 

elements, FHWA proposes to require 

each State to submit MIRE fundamental 

data elements as part of their regular 

Highway Performance Monitoring 

System submittal beginning in 2026. 

III. Costs and Benefits 

In accordance with Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) guidance, and DOT 

guidance, FHWA evaluated this 

proposed rule for quantifiable costs, cost 

savings, and benefits. The FHWA 

anticipates increased data collection 

and reporting requirements will impose 

additional burden on State departments 

of transportation (States) as well as 

additional review burden by FHWA. 

The FHWA anticipates that cost savings 

to FHWA and States will result from 

changing the focus of the HSIP report. 

In accordance with OMB guidance, 

FHWA estimated the costs and cost 

savings over a 10-year analysis period 

using both a 7 percent and a 3 percent 

discount rate.4 For the 10-year period 

from 2024 through 2033, FHWA 

estimated the costs of the proposed rule 

at $64.9 million, or $9.2 million on an 

annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars 

and using a 7 percent discount rate. If 

a 3 percent discount rate is used these 

costs are estimated at $70.3 million for 

the same 10-year period, or $8.2 million 

on an annual basis, measured in 2022 

dollars. The FHWA also expects the 

proposed rule to have some cost 

savings. For the 10-year period from 

2024 through 2033, FHWA estimated 

the cost savings of the proposed rule at 

$227,442, or $32,383 on an annual basis 

using a 7 percent discount rate. If a 3 

percent discount rate is used, these cost 

savings are estimated at $276,230 for the 

same 10-year period, or $32,383 on an 

annual basis. 

Changes resulting from the proposed 

rule are expected to advance the 

purpose of the HSIP by increasing safety 

and resulting in fewer traffic-related 

injuries and fatalities. In accordance 

with OMB guidance, FHWA follows a 

break-even analysis approach to 

calculate the number of lives that need 

to be saved in each year for the benefits 

of the proposed rule to outweigh the 

costs. The break-even analysis 

concludes that a single life saved 

annually justifies the proposed rule. 

A supporting analysis and a 

spreadsheet in the rulemaking docket 

(FHWA–2023–0045) contain additional 

details. The FHWA requests data and 

comments that could inform the 

economic analysis for this rulemaking, 

including any estimates of resulting 

benefits. 

Background and Legal Authority 

In 2020, an average of approximately 

106 people lost their lives on roads in 

the U.S. every day.5 From 2011 to 2020, 

traffic fatalities in the U.S. increased by 

20 percent nationally, representing the 

highest number of fatalities since 2007.6

At the same time, the number of nonmotorist (pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and 

others) fatalities increased by 44 percent 

from 2011 to 2020.7 The number of 

people dying on U.S. roads is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13002 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

unacceptable. Through collective action 

from all roadway system stakeholders— 

from system managers and vehicle 

manufacturers to law enforcement and 

everyday users—we can move to a Safe 

System Approach that helps to 

anticipate human mistakes and keeps 

impact energy on the human body to 

tolerable levels, with the goal of 

eliminating fatalities and serious 

injuries for all road users. 

The Safe System Approach is a 

worldwide movement that has been in 

place for more than 30 years, and it 

involves a paradigm shift in how road 

safety is addressed. Whereas traditional 

road safety strives to modify human 

behavior and prevent all crashes, the 

Safe System Approach refocuses 

transportation system design and 

operation on anticipating human 

mistakes and lessening impact forces on 

the human body to reduce crash severity 

and save lives. It is based on a shared 

responsibility and emphasizes that all 

stakeholders have a role to play in 

ensuring that crashes do not lead to fatal 

or serious injuries. In line with DOT’s 

and FHWA’s top priority of safety, DOT 

and FHWA fully support the vision of 

zero deaths and serious injuries on the 

Nation’s roadway system and have 

adopted the Safe System Approach as 

part of the NRSS. Implementing the Safe 

System Approach requires evaluating 

the current state-of-practice, evolving 

the approach for consistency, and 

institutionalizing the paradigm shift. 

The HSIP, which sets the funding and 

policy tone for national roadway safety 

implementation efforts, is a key place to 

start. 

The HSIP is a core Federal-aid 

highway program with the purpose of 

achieving a significant reduction in 

fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads. See 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2). 

The HSIP requires a data-driven 

strategic approach to improving 

highway safety on all public roads that 

focuses on performance. See 23 U.S.C. 

148(c). The FHWA proposes to update 

the HSIP regulations to address 

provisions in BIL and reflect current 

priorities and state-of-practice. 

Specifically, FHWA proposes to 

incorporate the Safe System Approach, 

clarify the scope of a State’s HSIP to 

focus on the safety of all road users on 

the entire public road network in 

support of the long-term goal to 

eliminate fatalities and serious injuries, 

include the vulnerable road user 

assessment as part of the State SHSP, 

improve evaluation practices, 

streamline reporting efforts, and ensure 

States are collecting MIRE fundamental 

data elements. 

The FHWA’s authority to administer 

the HSIP is provided in 23 U.S.C. 148. 

In addition, 23 U.S.C. 130 provides 

authority to fund the elimination of 

hazards of railway-highway crossings, 

and 23 U.S.C. 150 directs FHWA to 

establish performance measures and 

standards to ensure the effective 

administration of the Federal-aid 

highway program, including the HSIP. 

Section 150 of title 23, U.S.C., also 

requires each State to set and report on 

performance targets in relation to the 

performance measures developed by 

FHWA. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The proposed regulatory text follows 

the same format and section titles 

currently in 23 CFR part 924. The 

FHWA proposes changes in each section 

as follows. 

Section 924.1 Purpose 

The FHWA proposes to revise § 924.1 

to state that the purpose of the 

regulation is to set forth requirements 

for the planning (instead of 

development) of a HSIP, as well as the 

requirements for the reporting of the 

HSIP in each State for consistency with 

the existing structure of the regulation. 

Section 924.3 Definitions 

The FHWA proposes to revise five 

definitions to provide clarity or 

consistency for each as related to the 

regulation. 

The FHWA proposes to revise the 

definition for the term ‘‘Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP),’’ as used 

in part 924, to clarify that the purpose 

of the program is to significantly reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries, consistent 

with the statutory purpose of the 

program. See 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2). The 

FHWA also proposes revisions to the 

HSIP definition to emphasize that these 

significant reductions should be 

continuous and that the program 

supports the long-term goal to eliminate 

such fatalities and serious injuries, 

consistent with the Safe System 

Approach principle that any deaths and 

serious injuries on public roads are 

unacceptable. States carry out the 

HSIP’s purpose by funding projects each 

year that advance safety. The FHWA 

believes it is important to encourage 

States to continue to seek reductions in 

traffic fatalities and serious injuries year 

after year, which will support the 

ultimate goal of having zero fatalities 

and serious injuries. 

To be clear, FHWA is not requiring 

that States eliminate all roadway 

fatalities and serious injuries, nor is 

FHWA proposing to hold States 

accountable for not eliminating all 

roadway fatalities and serious injuries. 

Instead, FHWA is emphasizing that 

achieving the national goal of a 

significant reduction in traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roads, 

which is the purpose of the HSIP, is 

ultimately a goal of reducing the 

incidence of fatalities and serious 

injuries to zero. 

The FHWA also proposes to clarify 

that, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148, the 

HSIP applies to all road users, in 

addition to all public roads. The 

existing regulation says this in some 

places but not all. 

The FHWA proposes to revise the 

definition of ‘‘highway safety 

improvement project’’ to clarify that a 

highway safety improvement project 

includes strategies, activities or projects 

for all road users. While the definition 

of ‘‘highway safety improvement 

project’’ in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) does not 

mention ‘‘all road users,’’ it does require 

that all highway safety improvement 

projects correct or improve a hazardous 

road location or feature or address a 

highway safety problem. The FHWA 

believes that hazardous roadway 

location and features and highway 

safety problems may impact the safety 

of any road user and, therefore, to 

achieve HSIP’s purpose of significantly 

reducing fatalities and serious injuries, 

all road users need to be considered in 

the implementation of highway safety 

improvement projects. 

The FHWA also proposes to revise 

this definition to ensure that highway 

safety improvement projects advance a 

Safe System Approach. The FHWA 

views the Safe System Approach, as 

defined further below, as a means to 

ensure that highway safety 

improvement projects correct or 

improve a high-risk road location or 

feature or address a highway safety 

need. See 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A). 

After consultation with States, FHWA 

also proposes minor technical edits to 

the definition to replace ‘‘hazardous’’ 

with ‘‘high risk’’ and ‘‘safety problem’’ 

with ‘‘safety need’’. Lastly, FHWA 

proposes to clarify that highway safety 

improvement projects include one or 

more of the projects listed in 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(4)(B). Section 148(e)(3)(C)(i) of 

title 23, U.S.C., requires ‘‘specified 

safety projects,’’ which are defined in 23 

U.S.C. 148(a)(11), to meet all 

requirements under 23 U.S.C. 148 that 

apply to highway safety improvement 

projects. For clarity, when the term 

highway safety improvement project is 

used in this regulation, it refers to both 

highway safety improvement projects 

under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) and specified 

safety projects under 23 U.S.C. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13003 

8National Roadway Safety Strategy, p. 7. 

148(a)(11) as the same requirements 

apply to both. 

The FHWA proposes to revise the 

definition of ‘‘railway-highway crossing 

protective device’’ to replace ‘‘track 

circuit improvements’’ in the current 

regulation with ‘‘track circuitry.’’ The 

current regulations suggest that ‘‘track 

circuit improvements’’ are an example 

of a system component associated with 

traffic control devices. The FHWA is 

making this revision to make clear that 

the component associated with traffic 

control devices is the track circuitry 

itself. 

The FHWA proposes to revise the 

definition of ‘‘safety data’’ to clarify that 

it also applies to all road users, as 

reducing traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries through the use of safety data 

requires a consideration of all affected 

road users. The FHWA also proposes to 

clarify that safety data also includes 

crash and exposure data for nonmotorized users consistent with 23 

U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(vi), which requires 

States to improve the collection of data 

on non-motorized crashes as part of 

their HSIP. 

The FHWA proposes to revise the 

definition of ‘‘safety stakeholder’’ to 

include representatives from public 

health agencies and underserved 

communities. The FHWA proposes to 

include public health agencies to 

emphasize that road traffic crashes are 

not only a traffic safety problem, but 

also a public health problem. In the 

U.S., motor vehicle crashes are a leading 

cause of death, and kill approximately 

106 people every day. Public health 

agencies have implemented various 

injury prevention programs and 

initiatives and their input would add 

value to the SHSP update process. The 

FHWA also proposes to include 

representatives from underserved 

communities to ensure that the needs of 

all road users are represented in the 

planning, implementation, and 

evaluation of the HSIP, where 

appropriate. As described in the 

National Roadway Safety Strategy, 

underserved communities such as racial 

minorities and communities with higher 

poverty rates suffer from 

disproportionately higher rates of 

roadway fatalities compared to the 

overall population.8 Including members 

of underserved communities within the 

definition of safety stakeholder aligns 

with the statutory requirements 

regarding the SHSP, including the 

requirements that it consider highfatality segments of public roads and 

describe a program of strategies to 

reduce or eliminate safety hazards. See 

23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(D) and (a)(13)(F). 

The FHWA further proposes to add 

seven new definitions of terms used in 

the revised regulation. 

The FHWA proposes to add a 

definition for the term ‘‘non-motorized 

user’’ because it is used in several 

places throughout the existing 

regulation. The proposed definition is 

synonymous with the definition of 

‘‘vulnerable road user’’ that was added 

by BIL at 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(15), which 

includes the types of road users 

described by the definitions for 

‘‘number of non-motorized fatalities’’ 

and ‘‘number of non-motorized serious 

injuries’’ in 23 CFR 490.205, i.e., 

pedestrian, bicyclist, other cyclist, or 

person on personal conveyance. 

The FHWA proposes to add a 

definition for the term ‘‘road user’’ 

because it would be used more 

frequently in the proposed updates to 

the regulation. The term ‘‘road user’’ is 

defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as ‘‘a 

motorist, passenger, public 

transportation operator or user, truck 

driver, bicyclist, motorcyclist, or 

pedestrian, including a person with 

disabilities.’’ The definition proposed 

for inclusion in § 924.3 substitutes the 

words ‘‘non-motorized user’’ for 

‘‘pedestrian’’ and ‘‘bicyclist’’ because 

‘‘non-motorized user,’’ as defined in this 

NPRM, is more inclusive of the full 

range of people who use the Nation’s 

roads. The FHWA does not view the 

definition of ‘‘road user’’ in 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(8) as limiting the type of road 

users who the HSIP is supposed to 

benefit to the listed groups. Such an 

interpretation would mean that a 

program whose purpose is to achieve a 

significant reduction in traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roads 

would not necessarily consider certain 

types of individuals who may be 

involved in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries. Instead, for the purpose of this 

regulation, FHWA is interpreting 

‘‘bicyclist’’ and ‘‘pedestrian’’ as used in 

23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as referring generally 

to ‘‘non-motorized users.’’ This 

interpretation will include nonmotorized users, such as users of 

micromobility devices, who may not be 

considered ‘‘bicyclists’’ or ‘‘pedestrians’’ 

under strict readings of those terms but 

who are equally affected by highway 

safety problems. In addition, as noted 

above, BIL added the term ‘‘vulnerable 

road user’’ to 23 U.S.C. 148(a), and the 

proposed rule also uses the term ‘‘nonmotorized user’’ synonymously with 

‘‘vulnerable road user.’’ The FHWA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the statute’s reference to 

‘‘pedestrian’’ and ‘‘bicyclist’’ in 23 

U.S.C. 148(a)(8) to include the full range 

of non-motorized road users because the 

definition of ‘‘road user’’ at 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(8) necessarily encompasses 

‘‘vulnerable road user,’’ which includes 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized users. 

The FHWA proposes to add a 

definition for the term ‘‘Safe System 

Approach.’’ As discussed above, the 

Safe System Approach aims to eliminate 

fatal and serious injuries for all road 

users through a holistic view of the road 

system that first, anticipates human 

mistakes and second, keeps impact 

energy on the human body at tolerable 

levels. Adopting the Safe System 

Approach provides a substantial 

opportunity to eliminate deaths and 

serious injuries on the Nation’s roads 

and achieve the purpose of the HSIP. As 

stated in 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2), the 

purpose of the HSIP is to ‘‘achieve a 

significant reduction in traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public 

roads,’’ which, if successfully 

implemented over time, should lead to 

the elimination of fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. 

The FHWA believes that the Safe 

System Approach, as defined in the 

proposed rule, is a data-driven, holistic 

approach to safety that best achieves the 

HSIP’s purpose. The FHWA’s proposed 

definition aligns with the usage of that 

term in the NRSS, which describes an 

existing and widely understood 

approach to safety, rather than the 

definition of ‘‘Safe System approach’’ in 

23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9), which refers to a 

type of roadway design for the purpose 

of the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. The proposed definition of 

‘‘Safe System Approach’’ in § 924.3, 

however, is not inconsistent with and 

would not impact the definition of ‘‘Safe 

System approach’’ in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9) 

for the purposes of conducting a 

Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. 

Because FHWA is proposing to revise 

the definition of ‘‘highway safety 

improvement project’’ to include 

specified safety projects, FHWA 

proposes to add a definition for the term 

‘‘specified safety project,’’ which would 

have the same meaning as that term is 

defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11). 

The FHWA proposes to add a 

definition for the term ‘‘systemwide 

safety risk assessment.’’ This term 

would be incorporated into this 

regulation, as described in proposed 

changes to § 924.9. For the purposes of 

this regulation, the term systemwide 

safety risk assessment means a 

framework to assign risk ratings to all 

public roads considering primarily 

roadway characteristics, and other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13004 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9usRAP | United States Road Assessment 

Program, http://www.usrap.org/. 10See E.O. 13985 of Jan. 20, 2021, Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for Underserved 

Communities Through the Federal Government, § 2, 

86 FR 7009. 11NRSS, p. 21. 

safety data and analysis results, as 

appropriate. The risk ratings shall 

classify all sections of the roadway 

network in no fewer than three 

categories according to their level of 

safety. The FHWA believes that a 

classification framework with at least 

three levels of safety is needed to 

provide a meaningful way for States to 

distinguish between different safety 

levels to support prioritization of 

projects that best improve safety. Such 

a framework is consistent with the 

requirements in 23 U.S.C. 

148(c)(2)(B)(iv)–(v) that States have in 

place a safety data system that allows 

for the identification of highway safety 

improvement projects on the basis of 

crash experience, crash potential, crash 

rate, or other data-supported means so 

a State can consider which projects 

maximize opportunities to advance 

safety. It is also consistent with the 

requirements for the SHSP in 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(13)(B) to analyze and make 

effective use of State, regional, local, or 

Tribal safety data and section 

148(a)(13)(D) to consider the safety 

needs of, and high-fatality segments of, 

all public roads. This classification 

framework may be as simple as highmedium-low, indicating the risk for 

potential future crashes, or a star rating 

system similar to the Roadway Safety 

Foundation’s United States Road 

Assessment Program (usRAP),9 which 

uses a 5-star rating scale for roads, with 

1-star indicating the highest risk. The 

FHWA welcomes feedback on the 

appropriate number of categories for the 

risk ratings. 

The FHWA proposes to add a 

definition for the term ‘‘underserved 

communities’’ to emphasize the 

importance of equity in the HSIP. As 

discussed above and explained in the 

NRSS, underserved communities face 

disproportionate safety impacts. 

Eliminating traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries therefore requires a 

commitment to considering equity. The 

definition of ‘‘underserved community’’ 

is consistent with how that term is 

defined in E.O. 13985, ‘‘Advancing 

Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government.’’ 10

The FHWA proposes to add the term 

‘‘vulnerable road user safety 

assessment,’’ which adopts the 

definition of that term in 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(16). This is a new requirement 

under BIL and would be incorporated 

into this regulation in proposed changes 

to § 924.9. 

The FHWA proposes to retain all 

other definitions unchanged. 

Section 924.5 Policy 

The FHWA proposes to revise 

paragraph 924.5(a) to state that ‘‘Each 

State shall plan [instead of develop], 

implement, evaluate, as well as 

report. . .’’ to mirror the structure of 23 

CFR 924.9 through 924.15. The FHWA 

also proposes to require States to 

advance a Safe System Approach as part 

of the State’s HSIP. The adoption of a 

Safe System Approach in State HSIPs 

supports the Department’s NRSS key 

action to improve State strategic 

highway safety plans and ensure that 

State safety performance targets 

demonstrate constant or improved 

performance for each safety 

performance measure.11 The FHWA 

views the Safe System Approach as the 

optimal approach to safety that can 

guide how States view safety throughout 

the HSIP. 

In addition, FHWA proposes to revise 

the policy statement under paragraph (a) 

to emphasize that the objective of the 

State’s HSIP supports the long-term goal 

to eliminate fatalities and serious 

injuries. The FHWA also proposes, for 

the reasons explained above, to clarify 

that the HSIP applies to all road users 

in addition to all public roads. 

The FHWA proposes to revise 

paragraph (b) to clarify that HSIP funds 

shall be used, rather than should be 

used, to maximize opportunities to 

advance highway safety improvement 

projects that have the greatest potential 

to reduce the State’s roadway fatalities 

and serious injuries. Under 23 U.S.C. 

148(c)(2)(B)(v), States must consider 

which projects maximize opportunities 

to advance safety. At the same time, 

under 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C)(ii), States 

must adopt strategic and performancebased goals that focus resources on areas 

of greatest need. The FHWA interprets 

these provisions in unison as requiring 

States to focus resources on projects that 

maximize opportunities to advance 

safety. 

In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes 

minor technical edits to the first 

sentence to clarify that the policy 

statement in this paragraph, which 

elaborates on the statement in 23 U.S.C. 

148(e)(2)(B), applies to any other 

Federal-aid program and updates the 

title of the Surface Transportation Block 

Grant Program for consistency with the 

name used in current legislation. 

The FHWA proposes a minor 

technical edit to paragraph (d) to clarify 

that Tribal and local jurisdictions are 

distinct categories of governmental 

entities. 

Section 924.7 Program Structure 

The FHWA proposes to redesignate 

existing paragraph 924.7(b) as paragraph 

(c) and inserting a new paragraph (b) 

that would clarify the relationship 

between the safety performance targets 

and performance-based goals in the 

SHSP. Specifically, the safety 

performance targets must align with and 

support the SHSP performance-based 

goals, as is currently required in 23 CFR 

490.209(a). 

In paragraph (c) (as redesignated), 

besides a minor technical edit, FHWA 

proposes to clarify in the first sentence 

that a State’s HSIP must apply to all 

road users. Similar to what is stated 

above, FHWA believes that the purpose 

of the HSIP can only be carried out by 

addressing all road users, as traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries can occur 

to any road user. The FHWA also 

proposes to clarify that the State shall 

not only have HSIP processes, but those 

processes shall be documented and 

approved by the FHWA Division 

Administrator. The FHWA proposes this 

change to improve stewardship and 

oversight of the program. This proposed 

change is also consistent with the 

requirement for the Division 

Administrator to approve the SHSP 

update process pursuant to existing 23 

CFR 924.9(a)(3)(iii). 

Section 924.9 Planning 

In paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), FHWA 

proposes to add ‘‘and for all road users’’ 

to the end to clarify that the process for 

collecting safety data and advancing 

safety data collection efforts shall 

address all road users, in addition to all 

public roads. The HSIP requires a datadriven, strategic approach to improve 

highway safety on all public roads. The 

FHWA believes that this can only be 

achieved by considering data on all 

those who use public roads. 

In paragraph (a)(1), FHWA proposes 

to add a new subparagraph structure (i) 

through (iii). Proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) would require safety data to be 

able to differentiate between vulnerable 

road users other road users under 

subparagraph (i)(A), consistent with 23 

U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(vi), and also 

disaggregate safety data by demographic 

variables to support the inclusion of 

equity in the State’s HSIP in 

subparagraph (i)(B). 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would 

require States to collect any additional 

roadway data beyond the MIRE 

fundamental data elements, if necessary 

to support the proposed systemwide 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13005 

safety risk assessment. While States can 

conduct a systemwide risk assessment 

with the MIRE fundamental data 

elements and other asset-related data, 

other roadway data would add value to 

the process. 

The language in proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) is unchanged from the existing 

rule. 

The FHWA proposes various updates 

to the SHSP provisions in paragraph 

(a)(3). Under 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1) and 

148(d)(2)(B), FHWA is authorized to 

establish requirements for the contents 

of SHSP updates and State’s processes 

for updating the SHSP. 

In the introductory language to 

paragraph (a)(3) and in proposed 

paragraph (a)(3)(vi), FHWA proposes a 

minor technical edit to change ‘‘safety 

problem’’ to ‘‘safety need.’’ The FHWA 

also proposes to require the SHSP 

update to include a signature and 

effective date in paragraph (a)(3)(iv). 

The effective date would also be 

referenced in paragraph (a)(3)(i) to 

clarify that the timeline for updating the 

SHSP. Section 924.9(a)(3)(i) of 23 CFR 

currently requires that an SHSP update 

must be completed no later than 5 years 

from the date of the previous approved 

version. The FHWA believes that a 

reference to ‘‘5 years from the date of 

the previous approved version’’ is not 

clear, and FHWA is revising the text to 

clarify that an SHSP update must be 

completed no later than 5 years from the 

effective date of the previous approved 

version. To implement this change, 

FHWA is requiring that the SHSP 

update include an effective date, which 

FHWA is proposing to make in 23 CFR 

924.9(a)(3)(iv). The FHWA is also 

proposing to require the signature of the 

Governor of a State or a responsible 

State official that is delegated by the 

Governor. The signature demonstrates 

approval as required by 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(13)(H), and including an effective 

date will enable better tracking of SHSP 

updates. 

In proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v), 

FHWA proposes to clarify that the 

performance-based goals must be 

adopted for the duration of the SHSP. 

For example, if the SHSP covers a 5-year 

period, then the SHSP performancebased goals would also cover a 5-year 

period. Connecting the duration of 

performance-based goals to the duration 

of the overall SHSP is consistent with 

the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(13)(B) for the SHSP to analyze 

and make effective use of State, 

regional, local, or Tribal safety data. In 

addition, the current provision only 

requires States to adopt performancebased goals that are consistent with 

safety performance measures 

established by FHWA in accordance 

with 23 U.S.C. 150 without 

acknowledging that SHSPs cover 

multiple years. The FHWA is proposing 

this revision to rectify this issue. 

The FHWA proposes changes to 

paragraphs (a)(3)(vi) through (a)(3)(xi) to 

advance the Safe System Approach and 

ensure equity is addressed in SHSP 

updates. Specifically, in paragraph 

(a)(3)(vi) FHWA proposes to emphasize 

that the analysis and use of safety data 

also addresses safety needs and 

opportunities in underserved 

communities to ensure the safety needs 

of all road users are met. Ensuring that 

SHSP updates address the safety needs 

of underserved communities is 

necessary to implement 23 U.S.C. 

148(d)(1)(B)(ii)–(iii), which require that 

SHSP updates take into consideration 

the locations of fatalities and serious 

injuries and locations that possess risk 

factors for potential crashes (regardless 

of whether there is a documented 

history of fatalities and serious injuries). 

Further, paragraph (a)(3)(vi) currently 

requires that an SHSP update must 

‘‘[a]nalyze and make effective use of 

safety data to address safety problems 

and opportunities on all public roads 

and for all road users.’’ The FHWA is 

proposing this revision to highlight that 

‘‘all road users,’’ as used in the current 

regulations, must necessarily include 

road users in underserved communities. 

In paragraph (a)(3)(vii), FHWA 

proposes to require that SHSP emphasis 

areas and strategies are consistent with 

the Safe System Approach. A key aspect 

of the SHSP is that it evaluates highway 

safety holistically to identify which 

strategies and projects can best advance 

the goal of eliminating roadway 

fatalities and serious injuries. See 23 

U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(C) (defining the SHSP, 

in part, as a plan that ‘‘addresses 

engineering, management, operation, 

education, enforcement, and emergency 

services elements . . . of highway safety 

as key factors in evaluating highway 

safety.’’). This corresponds to the Safe 

System Approach’s focus on holistically 

integrating the elements of safe road 

users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe 

roads, and post-crash care to reduce 

highway fatalities and serious injuries to 

zero. In addition, paragraph (a)(3)(vii) 

currently requires that an SHSP update 

must ‘‘[i]dentify key emphasis areas and 

strategies that have the greatest potential 

to reduce highway fatalities and serious 

injuries and focus resources on areas of 

greatest need.’’ The FHWA believes that 

the Safe System Approach provides the 

appropriate framework to determine 

what ‘‘greatest potential’’ and ‘‘greatest 

need’’ mean. 

The FHWA proposes to add equity to 

the list of elements to address as a key 

feature in the identification of SHSP 

strategies in paragraph (a)(3)(viii). This 

will ensure that the SHSP considers the 

safety needs of all public roads and 

considers the results of State and 

regional planning processes, which 

must consider the needs of underserved 

communities. See 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(13)(D)–(E); 23 CFR 

450.210(a)(1)(viii) and 450.316(a)(1)(vii). 

The FHWA also proposes to add a 

new requirement under proposed 

paragraph (a)(3)(ix) for States to describe 

in the SHSP update how the SHSP 

supports a Safe System Approach. 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(B)(viii), 

FHWA must ensure that States take into 

consideration, with respect to updated 

SHSPs, safety on all public roads. The 

FHWA is proposing to carry out this 

requirement, in part, by having States 

identify key emphasis areas and 

strategies that are consistent with a Safe 

System Approach and describing how 

the SHSP supports a Safe System 

Approach, as FHWA considers the Safe 

System Approach to be the optimal 

method for considering safety. 

The FHWA proposes to add new 

paragraph (a)(3)(x) to include the 

vulnerable road user safety assessment 

as part of the State SHSP, consistent 

with 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(G). The 

FHWA proposes to modify redesignated 

paragraph (a)(3)(xi) (current paragraph 

(a)(3)(ix)) to require public involvement 

as part of the SHSP update process. 

Public involvement would help ensure 

the needs of all road users are addressed 

in the SHSP update and, in accordance 

with 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(I), ensure the 

SHSP is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 

135(g), which includes a requirement 

for public involvement in the 

development of the Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Plan. 

In redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(xii) 

(current paragraph (a)(3)(x)), FHWA 

proposes to separate Tribal from local 

governments since they are distinct 

units of government. The FHWA also 

proposes to clarify that the SHSP update 

shall provide strategic direction for not 

only other State, Tribal, and local plans 

as stated in the current regulation, but 

also programs such as the HSIP because 

the HSIP is a program, not a plan. The 

FHWA also proposes to add a Traffic 

Records Strategic Plan (TRSP) to the list 

of plans and programs for which the 

SHSP update provides strategic 

direction. A TRSP describes the desired 

future of the data systems a State uses 

to support data driven safety decisions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13006 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

12NHTSA, State Traffic Records Coordinating 

Committee Strategic Planning Guide (2019), p. viii. 

and how to get there.12 Many State 

SHSPs include a data emphasis area and 

include relevant strategies and actions 

that could be advanced through the 

TRSP. Including the TSRP in the list of 

plans that the SHSP must provide 

strategic direction to furthers the 

requirement in 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C) 

that a State HSIP advances the State’s 

capabilities for safety data collection, 

analysis, and integration. 

The FHWA proposes to relocate 

existing paragraph (a)(3)(xi) to 

§ 924.11(c)(i) because it is more relevant 

to implementation. Proposed revisions 

to this language are discussed under the 

heading for § 924.11. 

In paragraph (a)(4), FHWA proposes 

to require States to develop a process to 

conduct a systemwide safety risk 

assessment to implement 23 U.S.C. 

148(c)(2)(B). That provision requires 

States to (i) identify hazardous 

locations, sections, and elements that 

constitute a danger to motorists, 

vulnerable road users, and other 

highway users; (ii) establish the relative 

severity of those locations; (iii) identify 

the number of fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads by location 

in the State; (iv) identify highway safety 

improvement projects on the basis of 

crash experience, crash potential, crash 

rate, or other data-supported means; and 

(v) consider which projects maximize 

opportunities to advance safety. 

Requiring a systemwide safety risk 

assessment aligns with 23 U.S.C. 

148(c)(2)(B), as it would require States 

to assign risk ratings to all public roads 

after considering safety data. The 

systemwide safety risk assessment 

would allow States to establish a base 

level of safety performance for all roads 

(23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(i), (iii)), develop 

safety infrastructure key performance 

indicators (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(ii)), 

and prioritize investments to improve 

safety through not only the State HSIP 

but all Federal-aid programs and 

projects (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(iv), (v)). 

The FHWA also proposes to revise 

paragraph (a)(4)(i) to emphasize that the 

program of highway safety improvement 

projects would need to have the greatest 

potential to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads and for all 

road users, consistent with the Safe 

System Approach for similar reasons as 

described above for the proposed 

changes to § 924.5(b). 

Consistent with changes described 

above for proposed paragraphs (a)(3)(vii) 

and (viii), FHWA also proposes adding 

a new statement to require that the 

program of highway safety improvement 

projects shall advance the Safe System 

Approach and address fatalities and 

serious injuries in underserved 

communities to advance equity. 

The remainder of paragraph (a)(4) and 

paragraph (a)(5) remains unchanged. 

In paragraph (a)(6), FHWA proposes 

revising existing item (i) to require 

States to consider which projects 

maximize the potential reduction of 

fatalities and serious injuries as part of 

their process for establishing priorities 

for implementing highway safety 

improvement projects consistent with 

23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(v). The FHWA 

also proposes removing existing item 

(iii), which currently requires States to 

consider SHSP priorities in their 

process for establishing priorities for 

implementing highway safety 

improvement projects because all 

projects must be consistent with the 

SHSP. This item is more related to 

eligibility than prioritization. 

Prioritization of highway safety 

improvement projects would be based 

on which projects maximize the 

potential reduction in fatalities and 

serious injuries and the cost 

effectiveness of the projects and the 

resources available. 

Paragraphs (b) and (c) would remain 

unchanged. 

Section 924.11 Implementation 

Paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) would 

remain unchanged. 

In paragraph (b), FHWA proposes to 

remove the requirement that States shall 

incorporate specific quantifiable and 

measurable anticipated improvements 

for the collection of MIRE fundamental 

data elements into their Traffic Records 

Strategic Plan by July 1, 2017, since the 

date for that requirement has passed. 

The FHWA also proposes to require 

each State to submit the MIRE 

fundamental data elements as part of 

their regular Highway Performance 

Monitoring System submissions, 

beginning after September 30, 2026, and 

continuing thereafter. The FHWA would 

expect each State to submit new data as 

it becomes available or on a schedule of 

the State’s selection. There would be no 

expectation for States to update this 

data annually. This requirement would 

help FHWA ensure that States adopt 

and use the subset of MIRE fundamental 

data elements per 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2)(B). 

In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes to 

relocate and revise the requirement from 

existing § 924.9(a)(3)(xi) to be consistent 

with existing FHWA guidance and the 

current state-of-practice for the SHSP 

action plans. 

In paragraph (d), FHWA proposes 

minor technical edits to better track the 

language in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2). 

The FHWA proposes to add new 

paragraph (g) to encourage States to use 

the various options available to them to 

streamline delivery of highway safety 

improvement projects. It is imperative 

that highway safety improvement 

projects be completed in a timely 

manner to realize their benefits. 

The FHWA also proposes to 

redesignate existing paragraph (g) as 

new paragraph (h) without change. 

Section 924.13 Evaluation 

Under § 924.13(a), FHWA proposes to 

add new subparagraph (a)(1) that 

requires a State’s HSIP evaluation 

process to include a process to evaluate 

the effectiveness of data improvement 

activities for MIRE fundamental data 

elements. The FHWA proposes this 

requirement to address 23 U.S.C. 

148(c)(2)(A)(ii), which requires the 

State’s safety data system to evaluate the 

effectiveness of data improvement 

efforts. This provision would apply only 

to MIRE fundamental data elements 

since that is a specific requirement of 

the HSIP under 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2)(B). 

States would be required to establish 

and track quantifiable measures related 

to data quality attributes of accuracy, 

completeness, timeliness, uniformity, 

accessibility, and integration. 

The FHWA proposes minor technical 

modifications to what would be 

redesignated as paragraph (a)(2) (current 

paragraph (a)(1)) to clarify that a State 

must have processes for evaluating 

individual highway safety improvement 

projects and countermeasures, as well as 

a process for evaluating the program of 

highway safety improvement projects. 

This is not an additional requirement 

but a clarification of an existing one. 

The existing regulation requires that 

States have a process to analyze and 

assess the results achieved by the 

program of highway safety improvement 

projects; however, to assess and analyze 

the program of highway safety 

improvement projects, States must first 

assess and analyze the individual 

projects and countermeasures that make 

it up. This change is also consistent 

with current law, FHWA practice, and 

existing FHWA guidance. Per 23 U.S.C. 

148(c)(2)(F) and 148(h)(1)(B), States 

must have an evaluation process to 

analyze and assess results achieved by 

highway safety improvement projects 

and assess the effectiveness of those 

projects as part of their annual HSIP 

report. 

The FHWA proposes a minor 

technical modification to what would be 

redesignated as paragraph (a)(3)(i) 

(current paragraph (a)(2)(i)) to clarify 

that a State should be confirming the 

effectiveness of SHSP strategies as part 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13007 

13The FHWA may issue updates to MIRE 

between the time that this NPRM and a Final Rule 

are issued. The tables in the Final Rule will 

reference the most current version of MIRE at the 

time the Final Rule is issued. The FHWA does not 

anticipate that changes that may be made to MIRE 

as a result of any updates will have a substantive 

impact in terms of complying with 23 CFR part 924. 

of its process for updating the SHSP. 

Effective implementation of the SHSP 

requires a State to understand whether 

a particular strategy is working, or if it 

needs to be updated for future 

implementation. 

Apart from minor technical edits, the 

remaining paragraphs in § 924.13 would 

remain unchanged. 

Section 924.15 Reporting 

The FHWA proposes the following 

changes to the content of the HSIP 

report. 

In the introductory text to paragraph 

(a), rather than require the usage of a 

specific tool, FHWA proposes to change 

the reporting mechanism to a more 

general electronic template provided by 

FHWA. This gives FHWA the flexibility 

to use the existing HSIP online reporting 

tool, or another electronic means for 

States to submit reports if deemed more 

effective by FHWA. 

In paragraph (a)(1), to minimize 

duplication with other HSIP 

documentation efforts, FHWA proposes 

to change the focus of the report to 

describe progress being made to 

implement the HSIP and the 

effectiveness of previously completed 

highway safety improvement projects. 

As such, FHWA proposes to remove 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), which currently 

discusses the structure of the HSIP, and 

(a)(1)(ii), which currently discusses the 

progress in implementing highway 

safety improvement projects. This 

information would be captured in the 

HSIP process documentation under 

§ 924.7(c) and, if applicable, the HSIP 

implementation plan under 23 U.S.C. 

148(i)(2). 

In redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) 

(current paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A)), FHWA 

proposes minor technical edits to 

remove the word ‘‘total’’ in the last 

sentence to clarify that a State must 

report the number of non-motorized 

fatalities and serious injuries separately 

because FHWA uses the serious injury 

data from the HSIP report to support the 

safety performance target assessment. 

This proposed change is also consistent 

with current reporting practice. The 

FHWA also proposes to require 

reporting information on fatalities and 

serious injuries for older drivers and 

pedestrians consistent with the special 

rule in 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(2) and existing 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C). 

The FHWA proposes to remove 

existing paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(B) and 

(a)(1)(iii)(C). The safety performance 

targets previously reported under 

existing paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) would 

be reported separately with the other 

performance measures required under 

23 CFR part 490. Consistent with 

current guidance, to carry out the 

special rules in 23 U.S.C. 148(g), FHWA 

only requires that States report 

information on the number of fatalities 

and serious injuries for non-motorized 

users and older drivers and pedestrians 

over the age of 65. By revising paragraph 

(a)(1)(i)(A) to require this information, 

existing paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C) becomes 

redundant. 

The FHWA proposes to add new 

paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) that would require 

a State to discuss the progress made 

implementing the priorities and actions 

identified in the State’s HSIP 

implementation plan under 23 U.S.C. 

148(i)(2) for those States that did not 

meet or make significant progress 

toward meeting their safety performance 

targets. 

The FHWA proposes to revise 

redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(ii) (current 

paragraph (a)(1)(iv)) to require States to 

report the results of individual projects, 

countermeasures, and program 

evaluations. States are currently 

required to report the results of 

countermeasure and program 

evaluations on an aggregated basis (i.e., 

groupings or similar types of highway 

safety improvement projects). This 

revision would also require States to 

report the results of individual project 

evaluations. While it is currently 

optional for States to report this 

information, nearly half of the States 

already do so, and, as noted above when 

discussing proposed changes to 

§ 924.13(a)(2), all States are necessarily 

required to have processes in place for 

individual project evaluations. Under 23 

U.S.C. 148(h), FHWA is responsible for 

establishing the content of State 

reporting on the effectiveness of States’ 

HSIPs, including reporting on the 

effectiveness of projects funded under 

section 148, and making this reporting 

available to the public in the interests of 

transparency. Requiring States to report 

information for individual projects will 

help FHWA ensure States are meeting 

this requirement, emphasize the 

importance of monitoring the 

effectiveness of HSIP implementation 

efforts, and support national program 

evaluations. 

The FHWA proposes to add new 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) for States to report 

on results from the new provision in 

§ 924.13(a)(1). Specifically, each State 

would be required to report quantifiable 

progress in the quality attributes of 

accuracy, completeness, timeliness, 

uniformity, accessibility, and 

integration of MIRE fundamental data 

elements. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to make 

technical amendments to paragraph 

(a)(1)(iv) to match the structure of 

revised paragraph (a)(1) and to correct 

an error in a statutory citation. The 

remaining provisions in § 924.15 would 

remain unchanged. 

Section 924.17 MIRE Fundamental 

Data Elements 

The FHWA proposes to add language 

to clarify the exception in 23 U.S.C. 

148(k) to MIRE fundamental data 

element collection requirements, which 

states that, subject to the conditions of 

23 U.S.C. 148(k)(1), ‘‘[a] State may elect 

not to collect fundamental data 

elements for the model inventory of 

roadway elements on public roads that 

are gravel roads or otherwise unpaved.’’ 

The FHWA also proposes to simplify 

the presentation of tables 1, 2, and 3 in 

the regulation. In general, the content in 

the tables would remain the same 

except for citation updates to reference 

MIRE Version 2.0, or the most current 

version.13

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA anticipates that the 

proposed rule will not be a significant 

regulatory action within the meaning of 

E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094 

(‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’), 

and DOT Rulemaking and Guidance 

Procedures in DOT Order 2100.6A (June 

7, 2021). This action complies with E.O. 

12866 and E.O. 13563 to improve 

regulation. The FHWA anticipates that 

the proposed rule would not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $200 

million or more. The FHWA anticipates 

that the proposed rule would not 

adversely affect, in a material way, any 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

territorial, or Tribal governments or 

communities. In addition, these changes 

would not interfere with any action 

taken or planned by another agency and 

would not materially alter the budgetary 

impact of any entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs. The proposed 

rule also does not raise legal or policy 

issues for which centralized review 

would meaningfully further the 

President’s priorities or the principles 

set forth E.O. 12866. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13008 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

The following paragraphs summarize 

the economic analysis for this proposed 

rule. A supporting statement and a 

spreadsheet in the rulemaking docket 

(FHWA–2023–0045) contain additional 

details. The FHWA requests data and 

comments that could inform the 

economic analysis for this proposed 

rule, including any estimates of 

resulting benefits. 

Table 1 summarizes the economic 

impacts of the proposed rule that were 

able to be quantified at this stage of the 

regulatory process. The quantifiable 

impacts are the costs and cost savings 

that the proposed rule would impose on 

States and on FHWA. The FHWA 

estimated the costs of the proposed rule 

at $64.9 million for the 10-year period, 

or $9.2 million on an annual basis, 

measured in 2022 dollars and using a 7 

percent discount rate. If a 3 percent 

discount rate is used, these costs are 

estimated at $70.3 million for the same 

10-year period, or $8.2 million on an 

annual basis, again measured in 2022 

dollars. The FHWA estimated the cost 

savings of the proposed rule at 

$227,442, or $32,383 on an annual basis, 

measured in 2022 dollars and using 7 

percent discounting. If a 3 percent 

discount rate is used, these cost savings 

are estimated at $276,230 for the same 

10-year period, or $32,383 on an annual 

basis, again measured in 2022 dollars. 

Based on the estimated economic 

impacts and the other criteria for a 

significant regulatory action under § 3(f) 

of E.O. 12866, FHWA has preliminarily 

determined that this proposed rule 

would not be a significant regulatory 

action. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED COSTS, COST SAVINGS, AND NET COSTS OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PROPOSED RULE

[2022 dollars] 

Costs of the HSIP proposed rule (2022 dollars) 

Calendar year Analysis 

period year Costs Cost savings Net costs 

2024 ................................................................................................................. 1 $57,057,401 $32,383 $57,025,018 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 2 108,615 32,383 76,232 

2026 ................................................................................................................. 3 1,764,627 32,383 1,732,244 

2027 ................................................................................................................. 4 108,615 32,383 76,232 

2028 ................................................................................................................. 5 7,946,874 32,383 7,914,491 

2029 ................................................................................................................. 6 108,615 32,383 76,232 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 7 108,615 32,383 76,232 

2031 ................................................................................................................. 8 108,615 32,383 76,232 

2032 ................................................................................................................. 9 108,615 32,383 76,232 

2033 ................................................................................................................. 10 7,946,874 32,383 7,914,491 

Total to FHWA ...................................................................................................................... 244,363 47,824 196,539 

Total to State DOTs ............................................................................................................. 75,123,101 276,002 74,847,098 

Undiscounted Total ............................................................................................................... 75,367,464 323,826 75,043,638 

Total with 3% Discounting .................................................................................................... 70,325,827 276,230 70,049,597 

Total with 7% Discounting .................................................................................................... 64,910,972 227,442 64,683,530 

Average Annual (Undiscounted) .......................................................................................... 7,536,746 32,383 7,504,364 

Annualized, 3% Discount Rate, 10 Years ............................................................................ 8,244,332 32,383 8,211,950 

Annualized, 7% Discount Rate, 10 Years ............................................................................ 9,241,862 32,383 9,209,479 

The main purpose of the HSIP is to 

achieve significant reductions in traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. Changes resulting from the 

proposed rule are expected to increase 

safety and result in fewer traffic related 

injuries and fatalities. In accordance 

with OMB Circular A–4, Regulatory 

Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003), FHWA 

follows a break-even analysis approach 

to calculate the number of annual lives 

that need to be saved for the benefits of 

the proposed rule to outweigh the costs. 

The break-even analysis concludes that 

a single life saved annually justifies the 

proposed rule. 

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 proposed rule on small 

entities and has determined that the 

action is not anticipated to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed rule affects State 

governments, and State governments do 

not meet the definition of a small entity. 

Therefore, FHWA certifies that the 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The FHWA has evaluated this 

proposed rule for unfunded mandates as 

defined by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). The 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a 

written statement, which includes 

estimates of anticipated impacts, before 

proposing ‘‘any rule that includes any 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year.’’ The current threshold after 

adjustment for inflation is $183 million, 

using the most current (2023) Implicit 

Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 

Product. As part of this evaluation, 

FHWA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of greater than $183 

million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C. 

1532). 

Further, in compliance with the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, FHWA will evaluate any 

regulatory action that might be proposed 

in subsequent stages of the proceeding 

to assess the effects on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. In addition, the definition of 

‘‘Federal Mandate’’ in the Unfunded 

Mandate Reform Act excludes financial 

assistance of the type in which State, 

local, or Tribal governments have 

authority to adjust their participation in 

the program in accordance with changes 

made in the program by the Federal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13009 

Government. The Federal-aid highway 

program permits this type of flexibility. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This proposed action has been 

analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in E.O. 

13132. The FHWA has determined that 

this proposed action would not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

assessment. The FHWA has also 

determined that this proposed 

rulemaking would not preempt any 

State law or State regulation or affect the 

States’ ability to discharge traditional 

State governmental functions. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed action under E.O. 13175, 

dated November 6, 2000, and believes 

that it would not have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes; 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments; and would not preempt 

Tribal law. Therefore, a Tribal summary 

impact statement is not required. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed action under E.O. 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has 

determined that it is not a significant 

energy action under that order because 

it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 

13211 is not required. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations implementing E.O. 

12372 regarding intergovernmental 

consultation on Federal programs and 

activities apply to this program. Local 

entities should refer to the Assistance 

Listing Number 20.205, Highway 

Planning and Construction, for further 

information. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) prior to conducting or 

sponsoring a ‘‘collection of information’’ 

as defined by the PRA. The FHWA 

currently has OMB approval under 

‘‘Highway Safety Improvement 

Programs’’ (OMB Control No. 2125– 

0025) to collect the information required 

by State’s annual HSIP reports. The 

FHWA also has OMB approval under 

‘‘Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS)’’ (OMB Control No. 

2125–0028). The FHWA invites 

comments about the intention to request 

OMB approval for a new information 

collection to include the components 

required in this NPRM. Any action that 

might be contemplated in subsequent 

phases of this proceeding will be 

analyzed for the purpose of the PRA for 

its impact to this current information 

collection. The FHWA will submit the 

proposed collections of information to 

OMB for review and approval at the 

time the NPRM is issued and, 

accordingly, seeks comments. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The FHWA does not anticipate that 

this proposed action would affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed this 

proposed action for the purpose of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347) and has 

determined that it would not have any 

effect on the quality of the environment 

and meets the criteria for the categorical 

exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), 

which applies to the promulgation of 

regulations, and that no unusual 

circumstances are present under 23 CFR 

771.117(b). 

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. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN contained 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 924 

Highway safety, Highways and roads, 

Motor vehicles, Railroads, Railroad 

safety, Safety, Transportation. 

Shailen P. Bhatt, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, FHWA proposes to revise title 

23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 

924, as follows: 

PART 924—HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 924 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, 

150, and 315; 49 CFR 1.85. 

■ 2. Revise § 924.1 to read as follows: 

§ 924.1 Purpose. 

The purpose of this regulation is to 

prescribe requirements for the planning, 

implementation, evaluation, and 

reporting of a Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) in each 

State. 

■ 3. Amend § 924.3 by: 

■ a. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP)’’, and ‘‘Highway safety 

improvement project’’; 

■ b. Adding a definition of ‘‘Nonmotorized user or vulnerable road user’’ 

in alphabetical order; 

■ c. Revising the definition of ‘‘Railwayhighway crossing protective devices’’; 

■ d. Adding the definitions of ‘‘Road 

user’’ and ‘‘Safe System Approach’’ in 

alphabetical order; 

■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘Safety 

data’’; 

■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Safety 

stakeholder’’, redesignating paragraph 

(10) as paragraph (12) and adding 

paragraphs (10) and (11); and 

■ g. Adding the definitions of 

‘‘Specified safety project’’, ‘‘Systemwide 

safety risk assessment’’, ‘‘Underserved 

communities’’, and ‘‘Vulnerable road 

user safety assessment’’ in alphabetical 

order. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: § 924.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) means a State safety 

program with the purpose to 

significantly reduce fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads and 

for all road users, in support of the longterm goal to eliminate such fatalities 

and serious injuries, through the 

implementation of the provisions of 23 

U.S.C. 130, 148, and 150, including the 

development of a data-driven Strategic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13010 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), RailwayHighway Crossings Program, and 

program of highway safety improvement 

projects. 

Highway safety improvement project 

means strategies, activities, or projects 

on a public road and for all road users 

that advance a Safe System Approach, 

are consistent with a State SHSP, either 

correct or improve a high risk road 

segment, location, or feature, or address 

a highway safety need, and are either (1) 

one or more of the projects listed in 23 

U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B) or (2) a specified 

safety project. 

Non-motorized user or vulnerable 

road user means a pedestrian, bicyclist, 

other cyclist, or person on personal 

conveyance, consistent with the 

definition for the number of nonmotorized fatalities and the number of 

non-motorized serious injuries in 

§ 490.205 of this title. 

* * * * * 

Railway-highway crossing protective 

devices means those traffic control 

devices in the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 

specified for use at such crossings; and 

system components associated with 

such traffic control devices, such as 

track circuitry and interconnections 

with highway traffic signals. 

* * * * * 

Road user means a motorist, 

passenger, public transportation 

operator or user, truck driver, 

motorcyclist, or non-motorized user, 

including a person with disabilities. 

Safe System Approach means a datadriven, holistic approach to roadway 

safety that: 

(1) Aims to eliminate death and 

serious injury for all road users; 

(2) Anticipates and accommodates 

human errors; 

(3) Keeps crash impact energy on the 

human body within tolerable levels; 

(4) Proactively identifies safety risks 

in the system; 

(5) Builds in redundancy through 

layers of protection so if one part of the 

system fails the other parts provide 

protection; and 

(6) Shares responsibility for achieving 

zero roadway fatalities among all who 

design, build, manage, own, and use the 

system. 

Safety data include, but are not 

limited to, crash, roadway 

characteristics, and traffic data on all 

public roads and for all road users. 

Safety data shall include crash and 

exposure data for non-motorized users. 

For railway-highway crossings, safety 

data also include the characteristics of 

highway and train traffic, licensing, and 

vehicle data. 

Safety stakeholder means, but is not 

limited to: 

* * * * * 

(10) Representatives from public 

health agencies; 

(11) Representatives from 

underserved communities; and 

(12) Other Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local safety stakeholders. 

Specified safety project has the same 

meaning as defined under 23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(11). 

* * * * * 

Systemwide safety risk assessment 

means a framework to assign risk ratings 

to all public roads considering primarily 

roadway characteristics, and other 

safety data and analysis results, as 

appropriate. The risk ratings shall 

classify all sections of the roadway 

network in no fewer than three 

categories according to their level of 

safety. 

* * * * * 

Underserved communities mean 

populations sharing a particular 

characteristic, as well as geographic 

communities, that have been 

systematically denied a full opportunity 

to participate in aspects of economic, 

social, and civic life. Underserved 

communities include Black, Latino, and 

Indigenous and Native American 

persons, Asian Americans and Pacific 

Islanders and other persons of color; 

members of religious minorities; 

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and 

queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with 

disabilities; persons who live in rural 

areas; and persons otherwise adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality. 

Vulnerable road user safety 

assessment means an assessment of the 

safety performance of the State with 

respect to vulnerable road users and the 

plan of the State to improve the safety 

of vulnerable road users as described in 

23 U.S.C. 148(l). 

■ 4. Revise and republish § 924.5 to read 

as follows: 

§ 924.5 Policy. 

(a) Each State shall plan, implement, 

evaluate, and report on an annual basis 

an HSIP that advances a Safe System 

Approach and has the purpose to 

significantly reduce fatalities and 

serious injuries resulting from crashes 

on all public roads and for all road 

users, in support of the long-term goal 

to eliminate such fatalities and serious 

injuries. 

(b) HSIP funds shall be used for 

highway safety improvement projects 

that are consistent with the State’s 

SHSP. HSIP funds shall be used to 

maximize opportunities to advance 

highway safety improvement projects 

that have the greatest potential to reduce 

the State’s roadway fatalities and 

serious injuries. 

(c) Safety improvements should be 

incorporated into projects funded by all 

Federal-aid programs, such as the 

National Highway Performance Program 

(NHPP) and the Surface Transportation 

Block Grant (STBG) Program. Safety 

improvements that are provided as part 

of a broader Federal-aid project should 

be funded from the same source as the 

broader project. 

(d) Eligibility for Federal funding of 

projects for traffic control devices under 

this part is subject to a State, Tribal, or 

local jurisdiction’s substantial 

conformance with the National MUTCD 

or FHWA-approved State MUTCDs and 

supplements in accordance with part 

655, subpart F, of this chapter. 

■ 5. Amend § 924.7 by revising 

paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 924.7 Program structure. 

* * * * * 

(b) Part 490, subpart B of this chapter 

establishes national performance 

management measures for the purposes 

of carrying out the HSIP. The safety 

performance targets established under 

§ 490.209 of this chapter shall align with 

and support the performance-based 

goals established for the SHSP in this 

section. 

(c) The HSIP shall address all public 

roads and all road users in the State. 

The HSIP shall document separate 

processes for the planning, 

implementation, and evaluation of the 

HSIP components described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. These 

documented processes shall be 

developed by the State and approved by 

the FHWA Division Administrator in 

accordance with this section and the 

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Where 

appropriate, the processes shall be 

developed in consultation with other 

safety stakeholders and officials of the 

various units of local and Tribal 

governments. 

■ 6. In § 924.9 revise and republish 

paragraph (a): 

§ 924.9 Planning. 

(a) The HSIP planning process shall 

incorporate: 

(1) A process for collecting and 

maintaining safety data on all public 

roads and for all road users. 

(i) Safety data shall: 

(A) Differentiate between vulnerable 

road users, including bicyclists, 

motorcyclists, and pedestrians, from 

other road users. 

(B) Be disaggregated by demographic 

variables to support the inclusion of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13011 

underserved communities in the State’s 

Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

(ii) Roadway data shall include: 

(A) The MIRE Fundamental Data 

Elements as established in § 924.17; and 

(B) Any additional elements necessary 

to support a systemwide safety risk 

assessment. 

(iii) Railway-highway crossing data 

shall include all fields from the U.S. 

DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory. 

(2) A process for advancing the State’s 

capabilities for safety data collection 

and analysis by improving the 

timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 

uniformity, integration, and 

accessibility of their safety data on all 

public roads and for all road users. 

(3) A process for updating the SHSP 

that identifies and analyzes highway 

safety needs and opportunities in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. A SHSP 

update shall: 

(i) Be completed no later than 5 years 

from the effective date of the previous 

approved version; 

(ii) Be developed by the State DOT in 

consultation with safety stakeholders; 

(iii) Provide a detailed description of 

the update process. The update process 

must be approved by the FHWA 

Division Administrator; 

(iv) Be approved, including signature 

and effective date, by the Governor of 

the State or a responsible State agency 

official who is delegated by the 

Governor; 

(v) Adopt performance-based goals for 

the duration of the SHSP that: 

(A) Are consistent with safety 

performance measures established by 

FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

150; and 

(B) Are coordinated with other State 

highway safety programs; 

(vi) Analyze and make effective use of 

safety data to address safety needs and 

opportunities on all public roads and for 

all road users, including in underserved 

communities; 

(vii) Identify key emphasis areas and 

strategies that are consistent with a Safe 

System Approach, have the greatest 

potential to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads, and focus 

resources on areas of greatest need; 

(viii) Address engineering, 

management, operations, education, 

enforcement, emergency services, and 

equity elements of highway safety as 

key features when determining SHSP 

strategies; 

(ix) Describe how the SHSP supports 

a Safe System Approach; 

(x) Include a vulnerable road user 

safety assessment; 

(xi) Consider the results of State, 

regional, local, and Tribal transportation 

and highway safety planning processes; 

demonstrate mutual consultation among 

safety stakeholders; and consider input 

from public involvement (as defined in 

§ 450.210 of this chapter) in the 

development of transportation safety 

plans; and 

(xii) Provide strategic direction for 

other State, Tribal, and local 

transportation plans and programs, 

including but not limited to the HSIP, 

the Highway Safety Plan, the 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan, and 

the Traffic Records Strategic Plan. 

(4) A process for analyzing safety data 

and conducting a systemwide safety risk 

assessment to: 

(i) Develop a program of highway 

safety improvement projects, in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), 

that has the greatest potential to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads and for all road users 

through the implementation of a 

comprehensive program of systemic and 

spot safety improvement projects. The 

program of highway safety improvement 

projects shall also advance the Safe 

System Approach and address fatalities 

and serious injuries in underserved 

communities. 

(ii) Develop a Railway-Highway 

Crossings program that: 

(A) Considers the relative risk of 

public railway-highway crossings based 

on a hazard index formula; 

(B) Includes onsite inspection of 

public railway-highway crossings; and 

(C) Results in a program of highway 

safety improvement projects at railwayhighway crossings giving special 

emphasis to the statutory requirement 

that all public crossings be provided 

with standard signing and markings. 

(5) A process for conducting 

engineering studies (such as road safety 

audits and other safety assessments or 

reviews) to develop highway safety 

improvement projects. 

(6) A process for establishing 

priorities for implementing highway 

safety improvement projects that 

considers: 

(i) Which projects maximize the 

potential reduction in fatalities and 

serious injuries; and 

(ii) The cost effectiveness of the 

projects and the resources available. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 924.11 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ b. Revising and republishing 

paragraphs (c) and (d); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as 

paragraph (h); and 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (g). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 924.11 Implementation. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each State shall have a complete 

collection of the MIRE fundamental data 

elements on all public roads by 

September 30, 2026. Starting after 

September 30, 2026, and continuing 

thereafter, each State shall submit the 

MIRE fundamental data elements as part 

of their regular Highway Performance 

Monitoring System submittal to FHWA. 

(c) The SHSP shall include or be 

accompanied by actions that address 

how the SHSP emphasis area strategies 

will be implemented. This includes a 

description of the related actions or 

projects, agency responsible for 

implementing each action, potential 

resources, and timeframe for 

implementing the strategies in each 

emphasis area. 

(d) Funds set-aside for the RailwayHighway Crossings Program under 23 

U.S.C. 130 shall be used to implement 

railway-highway crossing safety projects 

on any public road. If a State 

demonstrates that it has met all its 

needs for installation of protective 

devices at railway-highway crossings to 

the satisfaction of the FHWA Division 

Administrator, the State may use funds 

made available under 23 U.S.C. 130 for 

other Highway Safety Improvement 

Program purposes pursuant to the 

special rule in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2). 

* * * * * 

(g) States should use timesaving 

procedures, such as project bundling, 

indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity 

contracting (part 635, subpart F of this 

chapter), and other methods approved 

by FHWA to streamline HSIP project 

delivery. States and other Federal 

funding recipients can also use agency 

force account procedures (part 635, 

subpart B of this chapter) if they can 

demonstrate it is more cost effective 

than competitive bidding. 

(h) Except as provided in 23 U.S.C. 

120 and 130, the Federal share of the 

cost of a highway safety improvement 

project carried out with funds 

apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. 

104(b)(3) shall be 90 percent. 

■ 8. Amend § 924.13 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) as paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), 

respectively, and adding new paragraph 

(a)(1); 

■ b. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i); and 

■ c. Revising the introductory text to 

paragraph (b). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 924.13 Evaluation. 

(a) * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13012 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(1) A process to establish and track 

quantifiable measures to evaluate the 

effectiveness of data improvement 

activities to improve accuracy, 

completeness, timeliness, uniformity, 

accessibility, and integration for MIRE 

fundamental data elements. 

(2) A process to analyze and assess 

the results achieved by individual 

highway safety improvement projects, 

countermeasures, and the program of 

highway safety improvement projects in 

terms of contributions to improved 

safety outcomes and the attainment of 

safety performance targets established as 

per 23 U.S.C. 150. 

(3) An evaluation of the SHSP as part 

of the regularly recurring update process 

to: 

(i) Confirm the validity of the 

emphasis areas and effectiveness of 

strategies based on analysis of current 

safety data; and 

* * * * * 

(b) The information resulting from 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be 

used: 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 924.15 by revising the 

introductory text to paragraphs (a) and 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 924.15 Reporting. 

(a) For the period of the previous 

reporting year, each State shall submit 

to the FHWA Division Administrator no 

later than August 31 of each year, the 

following reports related to the HSIP in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 

130(g) using an electronic template 

provided by FHWA: 

(1) A report describing the progress 

being made to implement the HSIP and 

the effectiveness of completed highway 

safety improvement projects. The report 

shall: 

(i) Describe the progress in achieving 

safety outcomes and performance 

targets. This section shall: 

(A) Provide an overview of general 

highway safety trends. General highway 

safety trends shall be presented by 

number and rate of fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads by calendar 

year, and to the maximum extent 

practicable, shall also be presented by 

functional classification and roadway 

ownership. General highway safety 

trends shall also be presented for the 

number of fatalities and serious injuries 

for non-motorized users and older 

drivers and pedestrians over the age of 

65; and 

(B) Discuss the progress made 

implementing the priorities and actions 

identified in the State’s HSIP 

implementation plan under 23 U.S.C. 

148(i)(2), if applicable. 

(ii) Assess the effectiveness of the 

improvements. This section shall 

describe the effectiveness of individual 

highway safety improvement projects, 

countermeasures, and program of 

highway safety improvement projects 

previously implemented under the 

HSIP. 

(iii) Report quantifiable progress in 

the quality attributes of accuracy, 

completeness, timeliness, uniformity, 

accessibility, and integration for the 

MIRE fundamental data elements. 

(iv) Be compatible with the 

requirements of section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

(29 U.S.C. 794d). 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 924.17 by revising the 

introductory text and Tables 1, 2, and 3 

to read as follows: 

§ 924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements. 

The MIRE fundamental data elements 

shall be collected on all public roads, as 

listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this 

section, except as noted in 23 U.S.C. 

148(k). For the purpose of MIRE 

fundamental data elements 

applicability, the term ‘‘open to public 

travel’’ shall be consistent with the 

definition in § 460.2(c) of this chapter. 

TABLE 1—MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS FOR NON-LOCAL 1 PAVED ROADS

MIRE name 2 Roadway 

segment Intersection Interchange/ ramp 

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 3 4 ..................................................................................... X X ........................

AADT Year 3 4 .............................................................................................................................. X X ........................

Access Control 3 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Begin Point Segment Descriptor 3 ............................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

End Point Segment Descriptor 3 .................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Direction of Inventory ................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Federal Aid/Route Type 3 ............................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

Functional Class 3 ........................................................................................................................ X ........................ X 

Interchange Type ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X 

Intersection/Junction Geometry ................................................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Intersection/Junction Traffic Control ............................................................................................ ........................ X ........................

Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point ............................................................................. ........................ X ........................

Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point ............................................................................. ........................ X ........................

Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal ................................................... ........................ ........................ X 

Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal ........................................................ ........................ ........................ X 

Median Type ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

Number of Through Lanes 3 ........................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

One/Two-Way Operations 3 ......................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Ramp AADT 3 .............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X 

Ramp Length ............................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X 

Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ X 

Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X 

Route Number 3 ........................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Route/street Name 3 .................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Rural/Urban Designation 3 ........................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Segment Identifier ........................................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

Segment Length 3 ........................................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

Surface Type 3 ............................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Type of Governmental Ownership 3 ............................................................................................ X ........................ X 

Unique Approach Identifier (for each approach) ......................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Unique Interchange Identifier ...................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X 

Unique Junction Identifier ............................................................................................................ ........................ X ........................


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13013 

TABLE 1—MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA ELEMENTS FOR NON-LOCAL 1 PAVED ROADS—Continued 

MIRE name 2 Roadway 

segment Intersection Interchange/ ramp 

Year of Ramp AADT 3 ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X 

1Based on functional classification. 

2 Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No. FHWA–SA–17–048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/ 

49568. 3Existing Highway Performance Monitoring System element. 

4For each intersecting road. 

TABLE 2—MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA

ELEMENTS FOR LOCAL 1 PAVED ROADS

MIRE name 2 Roadway 

segment 

AADT 3 .......................................... X 

Begin Point Segment Descriptor 3 X 

End Point Segment Descriptor 3 ... X 

Functional Class 3 ......................... X 

Number of Through Lanes 3 ......... X 

Rural/Urban Designation 3 ............ X 

Segment Identifier ........................ X 

Surface Type 3 .............................. X 

Type of Governmental Ownership 3 ......................................... X 

1Based on Functional Classification. 

2 Model Inventory of Roadway Elements— 

MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No. FHWA–SA– 

17–048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/ 

view/dot/49568. 3Existing Highway Performance Monitoring 

System element. 

TABLE 3—MIRE FUNDAMENTAL DATA

ELEMENTS FOR UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE name 1 Roadway 

segment 

Begin Point Segment Descriptor 2 X 

End Point Segment Descriptor 2 ... X 

Functional Class 2 ......................... X 

Segment Identifier ........................ X 

Type of Governmental Ownership 2 ......................................... X 

1 Model Inventory of Roadway Elements— 

MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No. FHWA–SA– 

17–048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/ 

view/dot/49568. 2Existing Highway Performance Monitoring 

System element. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02831 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 170 

[Docket ID: DoD–2023–OS–0063] 

Posting of Informational Video: 

Cybersecurity Maturity Model 

Certification (CMMC) Program 

AGENCY: Office of the Department of 

Defense Chief Information Officer, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Notification of posting of 

informational video on CMMC. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Department 

of Defense Chief Information Officer 

(DoD CIO) has released an informational 

video to provide the public with an 

overview of the proposed rule for DoD’s 

updated Cybersecurity Maturity Model 

Certification (CMMC) Program, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on December 26, 2023 for public 

comment. The proposed rule establishes 

requirements for a comprehensive and 

scalable assessment mechanism to 

ensure defense contractors and 

subcontractors have, as part of the 

CMMC Program, implemented required 

existing security requirements for 

Federal Contract Information and 

Controlled Unclassified Information 

(CUI) and adds new CUI security 

requirements for certain priority 

programs. This document announces 

that a video file containing an overview 

briefing of the CMMC proposed rule, 

presented by leadership and staff from 

the Office of the DoD Deputy CIO for 

Cybersecurity, was posted on the 

internet on February 14, 2024. 

DATES: The video is available as of 

February 14, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The video is available to the 

public at the following link: https://

www.dvidshub.net/video/912871/cyber

security-maturity-model-certificationcmmc-proposed-rule-overview. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Diane Knight, Office of the DoD CIO, 

osd.mc-alex.dod-cio.mbx.cmmc-32cfrrulemaking@mail.mil, (202) 770–9100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A video 

on the proposed rule titled 

‘‘Cybersecurity Maturity Model 

Certification (CMMC) Program’’ (32 CFR 

part 170) (88 FR 89058–89138) has been 

posted to https://www.dvidshub.net/ 

video/912871/cybersecurity-maturitymodel-certification-cmmc-proposedrule-overview to provide the public with 

additional information and clarification 

on the updated CMMC Program as 

detailed in the proposed rule. 

This video is available to the public 

through the link above. Any interested 

member of the public may view this 

video. Closed captioning will be 

available for individuals who are deaf, 

hard of hearing, or who have certain 

cognitive or learning impairments. 

Dated: February 14, 2024. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03460 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2022–0854] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Reynolds Channel, Atlantic Beach, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the operating schedule that 

governs the Atlantic Beach Bridge 

across the Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, 

at Atlantic Beach, NY. The bridge 

owner, Nassau County Bridge Authority, 

submitted a request on September 22, 

2022 to modify the regulation to 

decrease the number of openings on 

signal from October through May. On 

November 16, 2023 Nassau County 

Bridge Authority sent an additional 

request to add a bridge tower call 

number and remove outdated language. 

It is expected that this change to the 

regulations will better serve the needs of 

the community while continuing to 

meet the reasonable needs of navigation. 

We invite your comments on this 

proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and relate material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

March 22, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0854 through the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS