326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 490 

[Docket No. FHWA–2013–0053] 

RIN 2125–AF53 

National Performance Management 

Measures; Assessing Pavement 

Condition for the National Highway 

Performance Program and Bridge 

Condition for the National Highway 

Performance Program 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: Section 1203 of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21) declared that 

performance management will 

transform the Federal-aid highway 

program and refocus it on national 

transportation goals, increase 

accountability and transparency of the 

Federal-aid highway program and 

improve project decisionmaking 

through performance-based planning 

and programming. Section 1203 of 

MAP–21 identifies the national 

transportation goals and requires the 

Secretary to promulgate a rule to 

establish performance measures in 

specified Federal-aid highway program 

areas. The FHWA is issuing three 

separate NPRMs to meet this 

requirement, and this is the second 

NPRM. 

This NPRM proposes to establish 

measures for State Departments of 

Transportation (State DOTs) to use to 

carry out the National Highway 

Performance Program (NHPP) and to 

assess the condition of the following: 

pavements on the National Highway 

System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate 

System), bridges on the NHS, and 

pavements on the Interstate System. The 

NHPP is a core Federal-aid highway 

program that provides support for the 

condition and performance of the NHS 

and the construction of new facilities on 

the NHS, and ensures that investments 

of Federal-aid funds in highway 

construction are directed to support 

progress toward the achievement of 

performance targets established in a 

State’s asset management plan for the 

NHS. This NPRM proposes regulations 

for the new performance aspects of the 

NHPP, which address: measures, targets, 

and reporting. The FHWA intends to 

make these performance aspects of the 

NHPP available to the public in a format 

that is easily understandable and 

accessible for download. 

This second NPRM also includes a 

discussion of the collective rulemaking 

actions FHWA has or intends to take to 

implement MAP–21 performancerelated provisions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 6, 2015. Late comments 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number FHWA 

USDOT–2013–0053 by any one of the 

following methods: 

Fax: 1–202–493–2251; 

Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590; 

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; or 

Electronically through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket name 

and docket number or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking (2125–AF53). Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francine Shaw Whitson, Office of 

Infrastructure, (202) 366–8028, or Anne 

Christenson, Office of Chief Counsel, 

(202) 366–1356, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA has other rulemaking efforts 

underway to establish the measures 

required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c). The 

first performance measure NPRM 

covered the proposed performance 

management measures to carry out the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) and to assess serious injuries and 

fatalities per vehicle mile traveled 

(VMT), and the number of serious 

injuries and fatalities. That NPRM was 

published on March 11, 2014 (79 FR 

13846). The third performance measure 

NPRM will focus on measures for the 

performance of the NHS, the Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement (CMAQ) Program, and 

freight movement on the Interstate 

System. This last NPRM will also 

include a discussion that summarizes 

all three of the proposed rules to 

establish the measures required under 

23 U.S.C. 150(c). 

This current NPRM also proposes: 

The additional definitions that would be 

applicable to the proposed regulations; 

the process State DOTs and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) would use to establish 

performance targets that reflect the 

measures proposed in this rulemaking; 

and the methodology State DOTs would 

use to assess compliance with the target 

achievement provision specified in 

MAP–21. The NPRM also proposes the 

process State DOTs would follow to 

report on progress toward the 

achievement of pavement and bridge 

condition-related performance targets. 

Finally, this NPRM proposes minimum 

levels for pavement and conditions on 

the Interstate System. 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement 

and Outreach 

A. Consultation With State Departments of 

Transportation, Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations and Other Stakeholders. 

B. Broader Public Consultation 

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received 

IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background 

V. Performance Management Measure 

Analysis 

A. Selection of National Performance 

Management Measures for the NHPP: 

Pavement and Bridge 

B. Assessment of Selected Measures for the 

NHPP: Pavement and Bridge 

VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

General Information and Proposed 

National Performance Management 

Measures for the NHPP: Pavement and 

Bridge 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The MAP–21 (Pub. L. 112–141) 

transforms the Federal-aid highway 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 327 

1 ‘‘Non-Interstate NHS’’ and ‘‘NHS (excluding the 

Interstate)’’ are used interchangeably throughout 

this NPRM and have the same meaning. 2These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), 

which requires the Secretary to establish measures 

to assess performance or condition. 

program by establishing new 

requirements for performance 

management to ensure the most efficient 

investment of Federal transportation 

funds. Performance management 

increases the accountability and 

transparency of the Federal-aid highway 

program and provides for a framework 

to support improved investment 

decision making through a focus on 

performance outcomes for key national 

transportation goals. As part of 

performance management, recipients of 

Federal-aid highway funds would make 

transportation investments to achieve 

performance targets that make progress 

towards national goals. The national 

performance goal for bridge and 

pavement condition is to maintain the 

condition of highway infrastructure 

assets in a state of good repair. The 

purpose of this rulemaking is to 

implement these MAP–21 performance 

management requirements. 

Prior to MAP–21, there were no 

explicit requirements for State DOTs to 

demonstrate that their transportation 

program supported national 

performance outcomes. State DOTs were 

not required to measure condition, to 

establish targets, to assess progress 

towards targets, or to report on 

pavement and bridge condition in a 

nationally consistent manner that 

FHWA could use to assess the condition 

of the entire system. It was also difficult 

for FHWA to look at the effectiveness of 

the Federal-aid highway program as a 

means to address surface transportation 

performance at a national level. 

This proposed rule is one of several 

rulemakings that DOT is or will be 

conducting to implement MAP–21’s 

new performance management 

framework. The collective rulemakings 

would establish the regulations needed 

to more effectively evaluate and report 

on surface transportation performance 

across the country. This rulemaking 

proposes regulations that would: 

provide for greater consistency in the 

reporting of pavement and bridge 

conditions; require the establishment of 

targets that can be aggregated at the 

national level; require reporting in a 

consistent manner on progress 

achievement; and lastly require State 

DOTs to make significant progress. It 

would also require State DOTs to 

maintain their bridges and pavements at 

or above a minimum condition level. 

State DOTs would be expected to use 

the information and data generated as a 

result of the new regulations to better 

inform their transportation planning 

and programming decisionmaking. The 

new performance aspects of the Federalaid program that would result from this 

rulemaking would provide FHWA the 

ability to better communicate a national 

performance story and to more reliably 

assess the impacts of Federal funding 

investments. 

The FHWA is required to establish 

measures through a rulemaking to assess 

performance in 12 areas generalized as 

follows: (1) Serious injuries per VMT; 

(2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of 

serious injuries; (4) number of fatalities; 

(5) pavement condition on the Interstate 

System; (6) pavement condition on the 

non-Interstate NHS; 1 (7) bridge 

condition on the NHS; (8) traffic 

congestion; (9) on-road mobile source 

emissions; (10) freight movement on the 

Interstate System; (11) performance of 

the Interstate System; and (12) 

performance of the non-Interstate NHS.2

This rulemaking is the second of three 

NPRMs that together propose the 

establishment of performance measures 

for States DOTs and MPOs to use to 

carry out Federal-aid highway programs 

and to assess performance in each of 

these 12 areas. This rulemaking seeks to 

establish national measures for areas 5, 

6, and 7, in the above list. Other 

rulemakings would establish national 

measures for the remaining areas in the 

above list. This NPRM proposes to 

establish performance measures to 

assess pavement and bridge conditions 

on the Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS for the purpose of 

carrying out the NHPP. The four 

proposed measures to assess pavement 

condition are: (1) Percentage of 

pavements on the Interstate System in 

Good condition; (2) Percentage of 

pavements on the Interstate System in 

Poor condition; (3) Percentage of 

pavements on the NHS (excluding the 

Interstate System) in Good condition; 

and (4) a Percentage of pavements on 

the NHS (excluding the Interstate 

System) in Poor condition. The two 

proposed performance measures for 

assessing bridge condition are: (1) 

Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as 

in Good Condition; and (2) Percentage 

of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor 

Condition. 

This NPRM also proposes to establish 

the minimum level for pavement 

condition for the Interstate System as 

required by the statute. In addition, this 

NPRM proposes to establish the process 

for State DOTs and MPOs to use to 

establish and report targets and the 

process that FHWA will use to assess 

progress State DOTs have made in 

achieving targets. 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action in Question 

The FHWA proposes the 

establishment of: Performance measures 

to be used by State DOTs to assess the 

condition of pavements and bridges and 

to carry out the NHPP; the process for 

State DOTs and MPOs to establish 

targets for each of the measures; the 

methodology to determine whether 

State DOTs have achieved their targets; 

the process for State DOTs to use to 

report on progress for targets; and the 

minimum levels for pavement 

conditions on the Interstate System for 

purposes of carrying out 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(1). The FHWA also proposes to 

incorporate the minimum level for 

condition of bridges on the NHS as 

required by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). 

This NPRM proposes to add to 

subpart A general information 

applicable to Part 490, to include 

requirements for target establishment, 

reporting on progress, and how 

determinations would be made on 

whether State DOTs have made 

significant progress toward NHPP 

targets. Subpart A also would include 

definitions and clarify terminology 

associated with target establishment, 

reporting, and making significant 

progress. Subparts C and D propose 

performance measures to assess 

pavement and bridge conditions. 

Section 490.105 proposes the process to 

be used by State DOTs and MPOs to 

establish targets for each of the four 

pavement and two bridge measures. The 

State DOTs would establish 2- and 4- 

year targets for a 4-year performance 

period for the condition of 

infrastructure assets. State DOTs would 

establish their first statewide targets 1 

year after the effective date of this rule. 

The MPOs would establish targets by 

either supporting the State DOT’s 

statewide target, or defining a target 

unique to the metropolitan area each 

time the State DOT establishes a target. 

The MPOs would be provided a 180-day 

period following the date at which the 

State DOT establishes a target to 

establish their pavement and bridge 

targets. 

Section 490.107 proposes 

performance reporting for State DOTs 

and MPOs. The State DOT would 

submit their established targets in a 

baseline report at the beginning of the 

performance period and report progress 

at the midpoint and end of the 

performance period. State DOTs would 

be allowed to adjust their 4-year target 

at the midpoint of the performance 

period. The MPOs would not be 

required to provide separate reporting to 

FHWA; however, State DOTs and MPOs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3See Table 7 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis 

and Notices 

4Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost 

Index, 2012 

would need to agree to a target 

establishment reporting process in the 

Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in 

accordance with 23 CFR part 450. 

Section 490.109 proposes the method 

FHWA would use to determine if State 

DOTs have achieved or have made 

significant progress toward the 

achievement of their NHPP targets. 

Significant progress would be 

determined from an analysis of 

estimated performance/condition and 

measured performance/condition of 

each of the NHPP targets. If applicable, 

State DOTs would have the opportunity 

to discuss why targets were not 

achieved or significant progress was not 

made. If a State DOT fails to achieve 

significant progress for two consecutive 

biennial performance reporting periods 

(total of 4 years), then the State DOT is 

required to document in their next 

biennial performance report and 

encouraged to document sooner, the 

actions they will undertake to achieve 

their targets. 

In subparts C and D, §§ 490.305 and 

490.405 propose the pavement and 

bridge performance measures and 

program-specific definitions to ensure 

that the proposed performance measures 

are clear and consistent. 

Sections 490.307 and 490.407 propose 

that State DOTs and MPOs use a total 

of six measures to assess the condition 

of pavements and bridges on the NHS. 

The proposed pavement measures 

would be applicable to both Interstate 

and non-Interstate NHS mainline roads 

and the proposed bridge measures 

would be applicable for all NHS bridges, 

including bridges on ramps that connect 

to NHS. Both the pavement and bridge 

measures would reflect the percentage 

of the system in good and poorp 

condition. The measure calculations 

would utilize data documented in the 

Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) and in the National 

Bridge Inventory (NBI). 

Section 490.315 proposes the 

minimum level for condition of 

pavements on the Interstate System as 

required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii). 

Section 490.411 proposes to 

incorporate the minimum level for 

condition of bridges as required by 23 

U.S.C 119(f)(2). 

C. Costs and Benefits 

The FHWA estimated the incremental 

costs associated with the new 

requirements proposed in this 

regulatory action that represent a change 

to current practices for State DOTs and 

MPOs.3 The FHWA derived the costs of 

components by assessing the expected 

increase in level of effort from labor and 

additional capital needed to standardize 

and update State DOT data collection 

and reporting systems as well as the 

increase in level of effort from labor to 

establish and report targets. The FHWA 

sought opinions from pavement and 

bridge Subject Matter Experts (SME) to 

estimate impacts of the proposed rule. 

Cost estimates were developed based on 

assumptions informed by information 

received from SMEs. 

To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied 

the level of effort, expressed in labor 

hours, with a corresponding loaded 

wage rate that varied by the type of 

laborer needed to perform the activity.4

Where necessary, capital costs were 

included as well. Following this 

approach, the 10-year undiscounted 

incremental costs to comply with this 

rule are $196.4 million. 

The FHWA expects that, upon 

implementation, the proposed rule 

would result in some significant 

benefits, although they are not easily 

quantifiable. Specifically, FHWA 

expects this proposed rule to result in 

improved pavement and bridge 

condition-related project, program, and 

policy choices. The proposed rule also 

would yield greater accountability for 

recipients of Federal funding because 

MAP–21-mandated reporting would 

increase visibility and transparency. In 

addition, the proposed rule would help 

focus the Federal-aid highway program 

on achieving balanced performance 

outcomes. 

The FHWA could not directly 

quantify the expected benefits discussed 

above due to data limitations and the 

amorphous nature of the benefits from 

the proposed rule. Therefore, in order to 

evaluate the benefits, FHWA used a 

break-even analysis as the primary 

approach to quantify benefits. For both 

pavements and bridges, FHWA focused 

its break-even analysis on Vehicle 

Operating Costs (VOC) savings. The 

FHWA estimated the number of road 

miles of deficient pavement that would 

have to be improved (Table 8 in Section 

VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices) 

and the number of posted bridges that 

would have to be avoided (Table 9 in 

Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and 

Notices) in order for the benefits of the 

rule to justify the costs. The results of 

the break-even analysis quantified the 

dollar value of the benefits that the 

proposed rule must generate to 

outweigh the threshold value, the 

estimated cost of the proposed rule, 

which is $196.4 million in 

undiscounted dollars. The FHWA 

believes that the proposed rule would 

surpass this threshold and, as a result, 

the benefits of the rule would outweigh 

the costs. The below table displays the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) A–4 Accounting Statement as a 

summary of the cost and benefits 

calculated for this rule. 

OMB A–4—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

Category 

Estimates Units 

Source/citation 

Primary Low High Year dollar 

Discount 

rate 

(percent) 

Period 

covered 

Benefits: 

Annualized Monetized 

($ millions/year).

None .................

None .................

None .........

None .........

None .........

None .........

NA .............

NA .............

7 

3 

NA ................

NA ................

Not Quantified. 

Annualized Quantified None .................

None .................

None .........

None .........

None .........

None .........

NA .............

NA .............

7 

3 

NA ................

NA ................

Not Quantified. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 329 

OMB A–4—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—Continued 

Category 

Estimates Units 

Source/citation 

Primary Low High Year dollar 

Discount 

rate 

(percent) 

Period 

covered 

Qualitative ................... With regard to the pavement condition measures, the rule is cost-beneficial if it results in 

the net improvement of approximately 435 miles of pavement (i.e., from Poor condition to 

Good) per year, or 4,350 miles over ten years, from its current base case projection. With 

regard to the bridge condition measures, 0.2 year-long bridge postings would need to be 

avoided per year, or 2 year-long bridge postings over ten years, in order for benefits to justify costs. Because of these low thresholds, FHWA determines that the proposed rule benefits outweigh the costs 

Proposed Rule RIA. 

Costs: 

Annualized Monetized 

($/year).

$21,233,675 ..... ................... ................... 2012 .......... 7 10 Years ...... Proposed Rule RIA. 

$20,308,760 ..... ................... ................... 2012 .......... 3 10 Years.

Annualized Quantified None .................

None .................

None .........

None .........

None .........

None .........

2012 ..........

2012 ..........

7 

3 

10 Years ......

10 Years ......

Proposed Rule RIA. 

Qualitative.

Transfers ............................ None.

From/To ....................... From: ................ ................... ................... To:.

Effects: 

State, Local, and/or 

Tribal Government.

$21,162,705 ..... ................... ................... 2012 .......... 7 10 Years ...... Proposed Rule RIA. 

$20,241,409 ..... ................... ................... 2012 .......... 3 10 Years.

Small Business ............ Not expected to have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

NA ............. NA NA ................ Proposed Rule RIA. 

II. Table of Acronyms and 

Abbreviations 

Acronym or abbreviation Term 

AASHTO ............................................................................................... American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

CFR ....................................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations. 

CMAQ ................................................................................................... Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. 

CRCP .................................................................................................... Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements. 

DOT ....................................................................................................... U.S. Department of Transportation. 

State DOT ............................................................................................. State department of transportation. 

E.O. ....................................................................................................... Executive Order. 

FHWA .................................................................................................... Federal Highway Administration. 

FTA ....................................................................................................... Federal Transit Administration. 

HPMS .................................................................................................... Highway Performance Monitoring System. 

HSIP ...................................................................................................... Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

HSP ....................................................................................................... Highway Safety Plan. 

IRI .......................................................................................................... International Roughness Index. 

MAP–21 ................................................................................................ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. 

MPO ...................................................................................................... Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

NARA .................................................................................................... National Archives and Records Administration. 

NBI ........................................................................................................ National Bridge Inventory. 

NBIS ...................................................................................................... National Bridge Inspection Standards. 

NHPP .................................................................................................... National Highway Performance Program. 

NCHRP ................................................................................................. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 

NHS ....................................................................................................... National Highway System. 

NPRM .................................................................................................... Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

OMB. ..................................................................................................... Office of Management and Budget. 

PCCP or Jointed PCCP ........................................................................ Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.

PCI ........................................................................................................ Pavement Condition Index. 

PRA ....................................................................................................... Paperwork Reduction Act. 

PSR ....................................................................................................... Pavement Surface Rating. 

RIA ........................................................................................................ Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

RIN ........................................................................................................ Regulatory Identification Number. 

RSL ....................................................................................................... Remaining Service Life. 

Secretary ............................................................................................... Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

SHSP .................................................................................................... Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

TMA ....................................................................................................... Transportation Management Area. 

U.S.C ..................................................................................................... United States Code. 

VMT ....................................................................................................... Vehicle miles traveled. 

VOCs ..................................................................................................... Vehicle Operating Costs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5This propriety approach is intended to provide 

State DOTs the ability to relate tradeoffs between 

RSL, pavement management system data and life 

cycle costs in years and dollar metrics. This 

approach may not require changes to data collection 

or classification but would cost time and money to 

develop. 

6The Decay Ratio is the ratio of deck area of 

bridges which have become newly deficient in the 

past year to the deck area of bridges which have 

been repaired/rehabilitated/replaced in the past 

year. More simply, Decay Ratio = (Deck Area 

Worse)/(Deck Area Improved). 

III. Discussion of Stakeholder 

Engagement and Outreach 

In developing the NPRMs required by 

23 U.S.C. 150(c), including this NPRM, 

FHWA conducted outreach efforts to 

obtain technical information as well as 

information on operational and 

economic impacts from stakeholders 

and the public. The State DOTs, MPOs, 

transit agencies, and private/non-profit 

constituents across the country 

participated in the outreach efforts. A 

discussion of each contact or series of 

contacts influencing the agency’s 

position may be found in the docket. A 

summary of the contacts are described 

below. 

A. Consultation With State Departments 

of Transportation, Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations, and Other 

Stakeholders 

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

150(c)(1), DOT consulted regularly with 

affected stakeholders (State DOTs, 

MPOs, industry, advocacy 

organizations, etc.) to better understand 

the operational and economic impact of 

this proposed rule. In general, these 

consultations included: 

• Conducting listening sessions and 

workshops to clarify stakeholder 

sentiment and capture diverse opinions 

on the interpretation of technical 

information of the potential economic 

and operational impacts of 

implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; 

• Conducting listening sessions and 

workshops to better understand the 

state-of-the-practice on the economic 

and operational impacts of 

implementing various noteworthy 

practices, emerging technologies, and 

data reporting, collection, and analysis 

frameworks; 

• Hosting webinars with targeted 

stakeholder audiences to ask for their 

viewpoints through a chat pod or 

conference call; and 

• Attending meetings with non-DOT 

SMEs, including task forces, advocacy 

groups, private industry, non-DOT 

Federal employees, academia, etc., to 

discuss timelines, priorities, and the 

most effective methods for 

implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; and to 

discuss and collect information on the 

issues that need to be addressed or the 

questions that need to be answered in 

the NPRMs to facilitate efficient 

implementation. 

B. Broader Public Consultation 

It is DOT’s policy to provide for and 

encourage public participation in the 

rulemaking process. In addition to the 

public participation that was 

coordinated in conjunction with the 

stakeholder consultation discussed 

above, DOT provided opportunities for 

broader public participation. The DOT 

invited the public to provide technical 

and economic information to improve 

the agency’s understanding of a subject 

and the potential impacts of rulemaking. 

This was done by providing an email 

address 

(performancemeasuresrulemaking@

dot.gov) feature on FHWA’s MAP–21 

Web site to allow the public to provide 

their comments and suggestions about 

the development of the performance 

measures and holding national online 

dialogues and listening sessions to ask 

the public to post their ideas on national 

performance measures, standards, and 

policies. The DOT also conducted 

educational outreach to inform the 

public about transportation-related 

performance measures and standards, 

and solicited comments on them. 

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 

150(c)(2)(A), FHWA will ‘‘provide 

States, metropolitan planning 

organizations, and other stakeholders 

not less than 90 days to comment on 

any regulation proposed by the 

Secretary . . .’’ During the notice and 

comment period, FHWA will hold 

public meetings to explain the 

provisions contained in these NPRMs, 

including this NPRM. All such meetings 

will be open to the public. However, all 

comments regarding the NPRMs must be 

submitted in writing to the rulemaking 

docket. 

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received 

This section summarizes some of the 

common themes identified during the 

stakeholder outreach. These themes are 

organized by general concerns, 

pavement condition measure concerns, 

and bridge condition measure concerns. 

It is important to note that some of the 

stakeholder comments related to more 

than one topic. In that case, the 

comments were placed under whichever 

theme was most directly affected. 

General concerns: 

• Stakeholders questioned how 

FHWA would establish a methodology 

for determining significant progress 

toward achieving performance targets, 

and commented on the administrative 

burden on State DOTs and MPOs 

associated with target establishment and 

reporting. 

• Stakeholders asked DOT to avoid 

creating a ‘‘worst first’’ approach to 

selecting priorities and requested that 

FHWA consider using Asset 

Management principles to consider 

financial imbalances including the 

concept that performance measures 

should not drive the selection of 

projects. Stakeholders would like 

performance management to drive a 

system-wide, risk-based project 

selection approach that looks at longterm outcomes. 

• The stakeholders’ key messages 

were simplicity, consistency, and 

flexibility. 

Pavement Condition Measures 

Stakeholders suggested various 

analytic and empirical methods for 

performance measurement. One of the 

suggestions was to consider the use of 

Remaining Service Life (RSL) as a 

pavement performance measure. 

Stakeholders expressed that an RSL 

based approach to performance 

management would help agencies 

determine the timing and level of 

rehabilitation activities. Currently, some 

States DOTs have pavement and bridge 

measures that relate to RSL. Other 

suggested approaches for pavement 

performance measures included the 

Roadway Pavement Health Index 5 and 

the Decay Ratio.6

Most stakeholders supported the use 

of International Roughness Index (IRI) 

as a pavement performance measure. 

Some added that it should not be the 

sole pavement performance measure 

and that there are some limitations to its 

ability to provide agencies sufficient 

information for making investment 

decisions. Those stakeholders that 

support its use pointed to the long 

history of IRI and its use in HPMS 

protocols. 

Bridge Condition Measures 

Stakeholders supported establishing 

bridge condition performance measures 

using the existing NBI data. However, 

stakeholders’ opinions differed on the 

type of data to be used from the NBI and 

the processing of that data. For example, 

stakeholders were divided over the use 

of the ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’ 

classification. Some stakeholders also 

provided proprietary research 

information on advanced bridge 

condition assessment technologies and 

how these technologies may be used to 

reduce the number of structurally 

deficient bridges used today as a 

standard practice. 

Some stakeholders commented that 

simply measuring the physical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 331 

7Bridge Preservation Guidance (FHWA 2011) 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/preservation/

guide/guide.pdf 

8http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/

qapm.cfm 

9The NPRM was published on March 11, 2014 at 

79 FR 13846. 

10The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at 

79 FR 31784. 

11The NPRM was published on March 28, 2014 

at 79 FR 17464. 

12The FTA published their Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that incorporated 

Continued 

condition of a bridge does not provide 

a complete picture of the infrastructure 

problems. In addition to the physical 

condition, stakeholders suggested that 

FHWA consider the cost of repair or 

replacement and the importance of the 

facility based upon how many vehicles 

it served. However, others felt that 

element-level bridge condition data, 

which provides granularity, is necessary 

to develop performance metrics that can 

help States make better informed 

decisions concerning their bridge 

preservation needs. 

In addition, stakeholders conveyed 

other concerns regarding a proposed 

bridge condition measure. They 

believed FHWA should provide State 

DOTs and MPOs flexibility to move 

toward a national bridge performance 

measure based on element-level data in 

the near future and take into account 

other factors such as population 

changes. Stakeholders were also 

concerned that expansion of the NHS to 

include all principal arterial routes in a 

State may impact a State DOT’s ability 

to meet the minimum level for 

condition of bridges. Some stakeholders 

suggested that the measure established 

for minimum standard of bridge 

condition be consistent with definition 

of ‘‘state of good repair’’ in the ‘‘Bridge 

Preservation Guidance.’’ 7

IV. Rulemaking Authority and 

Background 

The cornerstone of MAP–21’s Federalaid highway program transformation is 

the transition to a performance and 

outcome-based program. As part of this 

program, recipients of Federal-aid 

highway funds would invest resources 

in projects to achieve individual targets 

that collectively would make progress 

toward national goals. 

The MAP–21 provisions that focus on 

the achievement of performance 

outcomes are contained in a number of 

sections of the law that are administered 

by different DOT agencies. 

Consequently, these provisions may 

require an implementation approach 

that includes a number of separate but 

related rulemakings, some from other 

modes within the DOT. This NPRM is 

focused on the implementation of some 

performance provisions related to the 

NHPP. The FHWA is also undertaking a 

rulemaking to implement new asset 

management requirements (RIN 2125– 

AF57) under the NHPP (23 U.S.C.119). 

Interested persons should refer to both 

rulemakings. Additional rulemakings 

are underway to implement other MAP– 

21 performance requirements. A 

summary of these rulemakings, as they 

relate to this proposed rule, is provided 

in this section, and additional 

information regarding related 

implementation actions is available on 

the FHWA Web site.8

Summary of Related Rulemakings 

The DOT’s proposal regarding MAP– 

21’s performance requirements would 

be presented through several 

rulemakings, some of which were 

referenced in the above discussions. As 

a summary, these rulemaking actions 

are listed below and should be 

referenced for a complete picture of 

performance management 

implementation. The summary below 

describes the main provisions that DOT 

plans to propose for each rulemaking. 

The DOT will seek comment on each of 

these rulemakings. 

1. First Federal-Aid Highway 

Performance Measures Rulemaking 

(RIN: 2125–AF49) 9

a. Propose and define national measures 

for the HSIP 

b. State and MPO target establishment 

requirements for Federal-aid highway 

program 

c. Determination of significant progress 

toward the achievement of targets 

d. Performance progress reporting 

requirements and timing 

e. Discuss how FHWA intends to 

implement MAP–21 performance 

related provisions. 

2. Second Federal-Aid Highway 

Performance Measures Rulemaking 

(This NPRM) 

a. Propose and define national measures 

for the condition of NHS pavements 

and bridges 

b. State and MPO target establishment 

requirements for the Federal-aid 

highway program 

c. Determination of significant progress 

toward the achievement of targets for 

NHPP 

d. Performance progress reporting 

requirements and timing 

e. Minimum levels for the condition of 

pavement on the Interstate System 

3. Third Federal-Aid Highway 

Performance Measures Rulemaking 

(RIN: 2125–AF54) 

a. Propose and define national measures 

for the remaining areas under 23 

U.S.C. 150(c) that require measures 

and are not discussed under the first 

and second measure rules, which 

includes the following: National 

Performance Measures for 

Performance of the Interstate System 

and non-Interstate National Highway 

System; CMAQ—Traffic Congestion; 

CMAQ—On-Road Mobile Source 

Emissions; and Freight Movement on 

the Interstate System 

b. State and MPO target establishment 

requirements for the Federal-aid 

highway program 

c. Performance progress reporting 

requirements and timing 

d. Provide a summary of all three 

performance measure proposed rules 

4. Update to the Metropolitan and 

Statewide Planning Regulations (RINs: 

2125–AF52, 2132–AB10) 10

a. Supporting national goals in the 

scope of the planning process 

b. Coordination between States, MPOs, 

and public transportation providers in 

selecting FHWA and public 

transportation performance targets 

c. Integration of elements in other 

performance-based plans into the 

metropolitan and statewide planning 

process 

d. Discussion in Metropolitan and 

Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Programs documenting 

how the programs are designed to 

achieve targets 

e. New performance reporting 

requirements in the Metropolitan 

transportation plan 

5. Updates to the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Regulations 

(2125–AF56) 11

a. Integration of performance measures 

and targets into the HSIP 

b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

updates 

c. Establishment of Model Inventory of 

Roadway Element—Fundamental 

Data Elements 

d. HSIP reporting requirements 

6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset 

Management Plan Rule (2125–AF57) 

a. Contents of asset management plan 

b. Certification of process to develop 

plan 

c. Transition period to develop plan 

d. Minimum standards for pavement 

and bridge management systems 

7. Transit State of Good Repair Rule 

(RIN: 2132–AB07) 12

a. Define state of good repair and 

establish measures 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

items 7 and 8, on October 3, 2013. This ANPRM 

may be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf. 

13 Ibid. 

14The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration published their Interim Final Rule 

(IFR) on January 23, 2013. This IFR may be found 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-23/

pdf/2013-00682.pdf. 

15 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1). 

16http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/

schedule.cfm. 

17 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii). 

18 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i). 

19 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329. 

b. Transit asset management plan 

content and reporting requirements 

c. Target establishment requirements for 

public transportation agencies and 

MPOs 

8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132– 

AB20) 13

a. Define transit safety standards 

b. Transit safety plan content and 

reporting requirements 

9. Highway Safety Program Grants Rule 

(RIN: 2127–AL30, 2127–AL29) 14

a. Highway safety plan contents, 

including establishment of 

performance measures, targets, and 

reporting requirements 

b. Review and approval of highway 

safety plans 

Organization of MAP–21 PerformanceRelated Provisions 

The FHWA organized the many 

performance-related provisions within 

MAP–21 into six elements as defined 

below: 

• National Goals—Goals or program 

purpose established in MAP–21 to focus 

the Federal-aid highway program on 

specific areas of performance. 

• Measures—Establishment of 

measures by FHWA to assess 

performance and condition in order to 

carry out performance-based Federal-aid 

highway programs. 

• Targets—Establishment of targets by 

recipients of Federal-aid highway 

funding for each of the measures to 

document expectations of future 

performance. 

• Plans—Development of strategic 

and/or tactical plans by recipients of 

Federal funding to identify strategies 

and investments that will address 

performance needs. 

• Reports—Development of reports by 

recipients of Federal funding that would 

document progress toward the 

achievement of targets, including the 

effectiveness of Federal-aid highway 

investments. 

• Accountability—Requirements 

developed by FHWA for recipients of 

Federal funding to use to achieve or 

make significant progress toward 

achieving targets established for 

performance. 

The following provides a summary of 

MAP–21 provisions, as they relate to the 

six elements listed above, including a 

reference to other related rulemakings 

that should be considered for a more 

comprehensive view of MAP–21 

performance management 

implementation. 

A. National Goals 

The MAP–21 section 1203 establishes 

national goals to focus the Federal-aid 

highway program. The following 

national goals are codified at 23 U.S.C. 

150(b): 

• Safety—To achieve a significant 

reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads, including 

non-State owned public roads and roads 

on tribal lands. 

• Infrastructure condition—To 

maintain the highway infrastructure 

asset system in a state of good repair. 

• Congestion reduction—To achieve a 

significant reduction in congestion on 

the NHS. 

• System reliability—To improve the 

efficiency of the surface transportation 

system. 

• Freight movement and economic 

vitality—To improve the national freight 

network, strengthen the ability of rural 

communities to access national and 

international trade markets, and support 

regional economic development. 

• Environmental sustainability—To 

enhance the performance of the 

transportation system while protecting 

and enhancing the natural environment. 

• Reduced project delivery delays— 

To reduce project costs, promote jobs 

and the economy, and expedite the 

movement of people and goods by 

accelerating project completion through 

eliminating delays in the project 

development and delivery process, 

including reducing regulatory burdens 

and improving agencies’ work practices. 

These national goals would be largely 

supported through the Metropolitan and 

Statewide planning process, which is 

discussed under a separate rulemaking 

(2125–AF52) to update the Metropolitan 

and Statewide Planning Regulations at 

23 CFR part 450. 

B. Measures 

The MAP–21 requires the 

establishment of performance measures, 

in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, 

and other stakeholders, that would do 

the following: 

• Carry out the NHPP and assess the 

condition of pavements on the Interstate 

System and the NHS (excluding the 

Interstate System), the condition of 

bridges on the NHS, and performance of 

the Interstate System and NHS 

(excluding the Interstate System); 

• carry out the HSIP and assess 

serious injuries and fatalities per VMT 

and the number of serious injuries and 

fatalities; 

• carry out the CMAQ Program and 

assess traffic congestion and on-road 

mobile source emissions; and 

• assess freight movement on the 

Interstate System. 

The MAP–21 also requires the Secretary 

to establish the data elements necessary 

to collect and maintain standardized 

data to carry out a performance-based 

approach.15

The FHWA would issue three NPRMs 

in sequence to propose the measures for 

the areas listed above. The first NPRM 

focused on the performance measures, 

for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP, 

to assess the number of serious injuries 

and fatalities and serious injuries and 

fatalities per VMT. This current NPRM 

focuses on the measures to assess the 

condition of pavements and bridges, 

and a third NPRM will be issued to 

propose the remaining areas under 23 

U.S.C. 150(c) that require the 

establishment of measures. The FHWA 

anticipates issuing these three 

rulemakings in staggered sequence. The 

FHWA proposes to establish one 

common effective date for all three final 

rules for these performance measures, 

but we seek comment from the public 

on what would be an appropriate 

effective date. Additional information 

on the approach to establish 

performance measures for the Federalaid highway program can be found on 

FHWA’s Transportation Performance 

Management Web site.16

The MAP–21 also requires FHWA to 

establish minimum levels for the 

condition of pavements for the Interstate 

System necessary to carry out the NHPP, 

which is proposed in this rulemaking.17

In addition, MAP–21 also requires 

FHWA to establish minimum standards 

for State DOTs to use in developing and 

operating bridge and pavement 

management systems, which FHWA 

would propose in a separate rulemaking 

to establish an Asset Management Plan 

(RIN 2125–AF57) for the NHS.18

Separate sections of MAP–21 require 

the establishment of additional 

measures to assess public transportation 

performance.19 These measures, which 

would be used to monitor the state of 

good repair of transit facilities and to 

establish transit safety criteria, would be 

addressed in two separate rulemakings, 

led by FTA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 333 

20 23 U.S.C. 150(d). 

21 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B). 

22 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2), 49 

U.S.C. 5303(h)(2), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2). 

23 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State 

Highway Safety Grant Programs, Interim final rule, 

78 FR 4986 (January 23, 2013) (to be codified at 23 

CFR part 1200). 

24 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329. 

25 23 U.S.C. 119(e). 

26 23 U.S.C. 148(d). 27 23 U.S.C. 149(l). 28 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C). 29 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4). 30MAP–21 Section 1118. 

31http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/

qapm.cfm. 

32 23 U.S.C. 150(e). 

33 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). 

34 23 U.S.C. 148(i). 

35 23 U.S.C. 119(f). 

36 23 U.S.C. 148(g). 

In regard to the Federal Lands 

Transportation Program, FHWA 

anticipates working with eligible 

Federal entities to establish performance 

measures. 

C. Targets 

The MAP–21 requires State DOTs to 

establish performance targets reflecting 

measures established for the Federal-aid 

highway program 20 and requires MPOs 

to establish performance targets for 

these measures where applicable.21 The 

first NPRM proposed the process for 

State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the 

establishment of safety performance 

targets. This NPRM and the third 

Federal-aid highway measure NPRM 

discuss similar target establishment 

requirements for State DOTs and MPOs 

as they relate to the measures discussed 

in the respective proposed rules. 

Additionally, State DOTs and MPOs are 

required to coordinate when selecting 

targets for the areas specified under 23 

U.S.C. 150(c) in order to ensure 

consistency in the establishment of 

targets, to the maximum extent 

practical.22 A separate rulemaking to 

update the Metropolitan and Statewide 

Planning Regulations (RIN 2125–AF52) 

at 23 CFR part 450 discusses this 

coordination requirement. 

Further, MAP–21 requires State 

Highway Safety Offices to establish 

targets for 10 core highway safety 

program measures in the HSP, which 

NHTSA has implemented through an 

Interim Final Rule,23 and for recipients 

of public transportation Federal funding 

and MPOs to establish state of good 

repair and safety targets.24 Discussions 

on these target establishment 

requirements are not included in this 

NPRM. Rather, DOT will discuss those 

target establishment requirements in the 

subsequent rulemakings to implement 

these respective provisions. 

D. Plans 

A number of provisions within MAP– 

21 require State DOTs and MPOs to 

develop plans that provide strategic 

direction for addressing performance 

needs. For the Federal-aid highway 

program these provisions require: State 

DOTs to develop a NHS Asset 

Management Plan; 25 State DOTs to 

update their SHSP; 26 MPOs serving a 

large TMA in areas of non-attainment or 

maintenance to develop a CMAQ 

Performance Plan; 27 MPOs to include a 

System Performance Report in the 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan; 28

and State DOTs and MPOs to include a 

discussion, to the maximum extent 

practical, in their Transportation 

Improvement Program as to how the 

program would achieve the performance 

targets they have established for the 

area.29 In addition, State DOTs are 

encouraged to develop a State Freight 

Plan to document planned activities and 

investments with respect to freight.30

This rulemaking does not discuss any 

requirements to develop or use plans. 

Rather, a discussion on the development 

and use of these plans would be 

included in the respective rulemakings 

to implement these provisions. More 

information on the required plans and 

the actions to implement the statutory 

provisions related to plans can be found 

on FHWA’s MAP–21 Web site.31

E. Reports 

The MAP–21 section 1203 requires 

State DOTs to submit biennial reports to 

FHWA on the condition and 

performance of the NHS, the 

effectiveness of the investment strategy 

documented in the State DOT’s asset 

management plan for the NHS, progress 

in achieving targets, and ways in which 

the State DOT is addressing congestion 

at freight bottlenecks.32 The FHWA 

proposed in the first NPRM that safety 

progress be reported by State DOTs 

through the HSIP annual report and not 

in the biennial report required under 23 

U.S.C. 150(e). This NPRM, under 

subpart A, discusses the 23 U.S.C. 

150(e) biennial reporting requirement. 

The 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting 

requirement would apply to all of the 

non-safety measures for the Federal-aid 

highway program (i.e., the measures 

proposed in this NPRM and in the third 

Performance Measures NPRM). 

Additional progress reporting 

requirements are required under the 

CMAQ Program, Metropolitan 

transportation planning, elements of the 

Public Transportation Act of 2012, and 

the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety 

Improvement Act of 2012. Detailed 

discussions on these reporting 

requirements are not included in this 

NPRM. Also, State DOTs should include 

a system performance report in their 

statewide transportation plan. These 

reporting provisions are discussed in 

separate rulemakings and guidance and 

are not discussed in this rulemaking. 

F. Accountability 

Two provisions within MAP–21, 

specifically 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) under 

the NHPP and 23 U.S.C. 148(i) under 

the HSIP, require the State DOT to 

undertake actions if significant progress 

is not made toward the achievement of 

State DOT targets established for these 

respective programs. For the NHPP, if a 

State DOT does not achieve or make 

significant progress toward the 

achievement of its NHS performance 

targets for two consecutive biennial 

reports, then the State DOT must 

document in its next report the actions 

it would take to achieve the targets.33

The proposed implementation of this 

provision is covered in subpart A of this 

NPRM. For the HSIP, if a State DOT 

does not achieve or make significant 

progress toward the achievement of its 

HSIP safety targets, then the State DOT 

must dedicate a specified amount of 

obligation limitation to safety projects 

and prepare an annual implementation 

plan.34 The first performance measures 

NPRM discussed this provision. 

In addition, MAP–21 requires that 

each State DOT maintain a minimum 

condition level for Interstate System 

pavement and NHS bridge conditions. If 

a State DOT falls below either standard, 

then the State DOT must spend a 

specified portion of its funds for that 

purpose until the minimum standard is 

exceeded.35 This NPRM discusses this 

provision. 

The FHWA recognizes that there is a 

limit to the direct impact that State 

DOTs can have on performance 

outcomes within the State and that State 

DOTs need to consider this uncertainty 

in their establishment of targets. The 

FHWA encourages State DOTs to 

consult with relevant entities (e.g., 

MPOs, local transportation agencies, 

Federal Land Management Agencies, 

tribal governments) as State DOTs 

establish targets, so they can better 

identify and consider factors outside of 

their direct control that could impact 

future condition/performance. 

Further, MAP–21 includes special 

safety rules to require each State DOT to 

maintain or improve safety performance 

on high risk rural roads and for older 

drivers and pedestrians.36 If the State 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

37Cracking_Percent refers to the data metric in 

HPMS and is used as one of the metrics for 

determining the condition of pavements for the 

performance measure. 

DOT does not meet these special rules, 

which contain minimum performance 

standards, then it must dedicate a 

portion of HSIP funding (in the case of 

the high risk rural road special rule) or 

document in their SHSP actions they 

intend to take to improve performance 

(in the case of the older driver special 

rule). Guidance on how FHWA would 

administer these two special rules is 

provided on the FHWA MAP–21 Web 

site. 

Implementation of MAP–21 

Performance Requirements 

The FHWA will implement the 

performance requirements within 

section 1203 of MAP–21 in a manner 

that results in a transformation of the 

Federal-aid highway program so that the 

program focuses on national goals, 

provides for a greater level of 

accountability and transparency, and 

provides a means for the most efficient 

investment of Federal transportation 

funds. The FHWA plans to implement 

these new requirements in a manner 

that will provide Federal-aid highway 

fund recipients the greatest opportunity 

to fully embrace a performance-based 

approach to transportation investment 

decisionmaking that does not hinder 

performance improvement. In this 

regard, FHWA carefully considered the 

following principles in the development 

of proposed regulations for national 

performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 

150(c): 

• Provide for a National Focus—focus 

the performance requirements on 

outcomes that can be reported at a 

national level. 

• Minimize the Number of 

Measures—identify only the most 

necessary measures that would be 

required for target establishment and 

progress reporting. Limit the number of 

measures to one or no more than two 

per area specified under 23 U.S.C. 

150(c). 

• Ensure for Consistency—provide a 

sufficient level of consistency, 

nationally, in the establishment of 

measures, the process to establish 

targets and report expectations, and the 

approach to assess progress so that 

transportation performance can be 

presented in a credible manner at a 

national level. 

• Phase in Requirements—allow for 

sufficient time to comply with new 

requirements and consider approaches 

to phase in new approaches to 

measuring, target establishment, and 

reporting performance. 

• Increase Accountability and 

Transparency—consider an approach 

that would provide the public and 

decision makers a better understanding 

of Federal transportation investment 

returns and needs. 

• Consider Risk—recognize that risks 

in the target establishment process are 

inherent and that many factors, outside 

the control of those that would be 

required to establish targets, can impact 

performance. 

• Understand that Priorities Differ— 

recognize that targets need to be 

established across a wide range of 

performance areas and that performance 

trade-offs would need to be made to 

establish priorities, which would be 

influenced by local and regional needs. 

• Recognize Fiscal Constraints— 

provide for an approach that encourages 

the optimal investment of Federal funds 

to maximize performance but recognize 

that, when operating with scarce 

resources, performance cannot always 

be improved. 

• Provide for Flexibility—recognize 

that the MAP–21 requirements are the 

first steps that will transform the 

Federal-aid highway program to a 

performance-based program and that 

State DOTs, MPOs, and other 

stakeholders would be learning a great 

deal as implementation occurs. 

The FHWA considered these 

principles in this NPRM and encourages 

comments on the extent to which this 

approach to performance measures, set 

forth in this NPRM, supports the 

principles discussed above. 

Federal Technical Assistance 

The FHWA is committed to providing 

stewardship to State DOTs and MPOs 

assisting them as they take steps to 

manage and improve the performance of 

the highway system. As a Federal 

agency, FHWA is in a unique position 

to utilize resources at a national level to 

capture and share strategies that can 

improve performance. The FHWA is 

prepared to dedicate resources at the 

national level to provide on-site 

assistance, technical tools and guidance 

to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them 

in making more effective investment 

decisions. It is FHWA’s intent to be 

engaged at a local and national level to 

provide resources and assistance from 

the onset to identify opportunities to 

improve performance and to increase 

the chances for full State DOT and MPO 

compliance of new performance related 

regulations. The FHWA technical 

assistance will include activities such as 

conducting national research studies, 

developing analytical modeling tools, 

identifying and promoting best 

practices, preparing guidance materials, 

and developing data quality assurance 

tools. The FHWA encourages comments 

on how it can help maximize 

opportunities for successful 

implementation. 

V. Performance Management Measure 

Analysis 

In consultation with State DOTs, 

MPOs and other stakeholders, FHWA 

selected measures for this proposed rule 

considered to be the best alternatives to 

carry out the pavement and bridge 

condition related provisions of the 

NHPP and to use to assess pavement 

and bridge condition. The FHWA 

evaluated the selected measures, using a 

common methodology, to identify gaps 

that could impact successful 

implementation of proposed 

performance measures. This section 

discusses the basis for selecting the 

proposed performance measures and 

FHWA’s identification of potential 

implementation gaps. 

A. Selection of National Performance 

Management Measures for the NHPP: 

Pavement and Bridge 

The FHWA considered views from the 

following sources when developing 

pavement and bridge measures to carry 

out the NHPP: 

• Knowledge of technical experts 

within DOT on the current state of 

practice to monitor highway pavement 

and bridge condition; 

• Information provided by external 

stakeholders received directly or 

captured as part of organized 

stakeholder listening sessions; 

• Information provided by external 

stakeholders received indirectly through 

informal contact such as telephone 

calls, email or letters; and 

• Measures that have been 

recommended and documented in 

nationally recognized reports such as 

the assessment of measurement 

readiness documented in the final 

report for NCHRP 20–24(37)G, 

‘‘Technical Guidance for Deploying 

National Level Performance 

Measurements.’’ 

Pavement Condition Measure 

Since 2010, through HPMS, State 

DOTs have submitted rutting, Cracking_

Percent, International Roughness Index 

(IRI), and faulting data metrics.37 The 

FHWA’s ‘‘Conditions and Performance 

Report’’ and ‘‘Highway Statistics Series’’ 

have used pavement roughness, with 

the IRI as a metric, as the basis for its 

pavement conditions. 

Based on FHWA’s research, most 

State DOTs use a common group of 

pavement metrics (e.g., pavement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 335 

38Flintsch G., McGhee K., NCHRP Synthesis 401, 

‘‘Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data 

Collection’’, 2009. 

39Zimmerman, K., Smadi, O. NCHRP 20–24(82), 

‘‘Increasing Consistency in HPMS Pavement Data,’’ 

2013. 

40 ‘‘The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for 

New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,’’ 

NCHRP 1–37A, 2004, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_

toc.pdf. 

41 Guerre, et al., FHWA–HIF–12–049, ‘‘Improving 

FHWA’s Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure 

Health Pilot Study Report,’’ 2012 http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/

hif12049.pdf. 

roughness, percentage of pavement that 

is rutted, percentage of pavement that is 

cracked, and the amount of 

misalignment between concrete 

pavement slabs), to report on and 

manage the condition of pavements in 

their State. There is not currently a 

nationally accepted method for 

assessing pavement condition using 

multiple pavement condition metrics 

(e.g., IRI, rutting, Cracking_Percent, 

faulting) that most State DOTs use. A 

survey conducted as part of the 2009 

National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401 

study 38 revealed that 98 percent of State 

DOTs collect distress data (e.g., faulting, 

cracking) and 95 percent collect 

roughness data to monitor network level 

pavement conditions. Similarly, an 

assessment of pavement management 

practices conducted by FHWA indicated 

that, for the NHS, all State DOTs 

monitor roughness and rutting, 94 

percent monitor Cracking_Percent, 95 

percent monitor faulting (with concrete 

surfaced pavements), and 31 percent 

monitor structural capacity. 

The FHWA selected these metrics for 

calculation of the performance measures 

to assess pavement conditions in this 

rulemaking. In support of the selection 

of these metrics, FHWA evaluated their 

use in highway pavement investment 

decisions by State DOTs. The Texas 

Transportation Institute conducted a 

study, called the ‘‘Pavement Score 

Synthesis.’’ The synthesis study 

indicated that nearly all State DOTs use 

a combination of pavement condition 

attributes and a variety of methods and 

procedures to rate the condition of 

pavements. Most of these methods and 

procedures included some aspect of 

pavement roughness and at least one 

other pavement condition metric. A 

recently completed NCHRP project 39

included a detailed review of data 

collected and reported by State DOTs on 

pavement condition in their State 

pavement management system as 

compared to the data they report in the 

HPMS. This project included a national 

survey that was provided to all State 

DOTs and a detailed assessment using 

data collected and reported from eight 

State DOTs. The project’s report 

indicated that assessments of pavement 

condition using State DOT methods of 

qualifying good, fair, and poor 

conditions were noticeably different 

from an approach based solely on IRI 

conditions as reported in the HPMS. 

In developing its proposed measure, 

FHWA considered the use of existing 

methods such as the Pavement 

Condition Index (PCI) developed by the 

Army Corps of Engineers, the RSL 

concept using prediction models 

developed for the MechanisticEmpirical Design Guide for New and 

Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, 

under NCHRP 1–37A 40, and State DOTdeveloped methods to calculate a 

pavement condition rating. The FHWA 

found that no single existing method 

was used predominantly enough to be 

considered as a national standard. In 

addition, existing methods, such as the 

PCI, were too challenging to implement 

nationally due to the burden and time 

associated with introducing pavement 

condition metrics that are not currently 

reported at a national level through a 

system like HPMS. 

The FHWA has been working for the 

past several years in consultation with 

State DOTs to evaluate approaches that 

could more completely assess pavement 

condition at a national level. Based on 

these efforts, FHWA proposes to 

establish measures to assess pavement 

condition that meet the following 

criteria: 

• Consider more than roughness. 

• Utilize pavement condition 

attributes currently reported at a 

national level. 

• Utilize pavement condition 

attributes where data collection and 

reporting standards exist today. 

• Result in an assessment approach 

that is consistent with typical 

conceptual approaches used today by 

State DOTs to assess condition. 

• Consider an approach that can be 

implemented so that State DOTs can 

establish targets within a 12-month time 

period after FHWA establishes the 

performance measures without 

introducing a considerable burden on 

State DOTs. 

The FHWA proposes in this NPRM a 

measure for State DOTs to use to assess 

pavement condition that satisfies the 

criteria above and is based on data 

within the HPMS, including: IRI, rutting 

for asphalt surfaced pavements, faulting 

for jointed concrete surfaced pavements, 

and Cracking_Percent. The FHWA 

proposes pavement condition measures 

that would reflect the predominant 

condition represented by each of these 

HPMS data elements. 

The four proposed measures to assess 

pavement condition are: (1) Percentage 

of pavements on the Interstate System in 

Good condition; (2) Percentage of 

pavements on the Interstate System in 

Poor condition; (3) Percentage of 

pavements on the NHS (excluding the 

Interstate System) in Good condition; 

and (4) a Percentage of pavements on 

the NHS (excluding the Interstate 

System) in Poor condition. 

The FHWA is proposing measures to 

represent both the percentage of Good 

pavements and the percentage of Poor 

pavements that would support sound 

asset management practices. The FHWA 

intends to implement a condition 

measurement approach that will 

recognize the need to both preserve 

Good and Fair conditions and improve 

Poor conditions. The FHWA believes 

that a measurement approach that 

focused only on increasing Good 

conditions or only on reducing Poor 

conditions may result in practices that 

would not optimize the benefits of 

infrastructure investments. This same 

approach is proposed for the bridge 

condition measures as discussed in the 

next section. 

Bridge Condition Measure 

The FHWA, using data from the NBI, 

monitors bridge conditions in the 

United States. This database was 

established in 1972 and State DOTs 

have been required to submit annual 

reports to FHWA since 1978. The NBI 

is a highly consistent set of national 

data for evaluating the condition and 

performance of bridges. The National 

Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) in 

23 CFR part 650 contribute to this 

consistency. The NBIS established the 

national standards for the proper and 

uniform inspection and evaluation of 

highway bridges. The NBIS include the 

specified methods by which inspections 

are to be carried out, qualifications for 

those charged with carrying out 

inspections, and certain bridge data that 

is to be collected and retained for 

collection by FHWA. For these reasons, 

FHWA considers the NBI and its data 

the definitive source for national bridge 

information and the most appropriate 

metric for bridge condition measures. 

The ‘‘Improving FHWA’s Ability to 

Assess Highway Infrastructure Health 

Pilot Study Report’’ 41 evaluated 

different methods to assign bridge 

condition using NBI data as a metric for 

defining a Good, Fair, or Poor 

classification. For this study, the NBI 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

42While FHWA proposes bridge condition 

measures that would reflect the lowest condition 

level represented by different bridge elements, the 

proposed pavement condition measures would 

reflect the predominant condition represented by 

certain HPMS data elements. The FHWA is 

proposing these differing approaches for pavement 

and bridges primarily due to the need to minimize 

safety risks associated with bridges. Additional 

information is provided in the Section-by-Section 

discussion to describe the differences in the 

methods to determine pavement and bridge 

conditions. 

database was selected as the logical data 

source because of the consistency of its 

representation of over 40 years of 

collected data, and its use by nearly 

every State DOT as the current basis for 

their bridge decisionmaking. The study 

discussed and evaluated four different 

weighted average methods and one 

minimum condition rating method. The 

four weighted average methods 

consisted of calculating a measure of 

structural adequacy based on a weighted 

average of deck, superstructure, and 

sub-structure condition ratings of a 

bridge. The minimum condition rating 

method calculated a measure of 

structural adequacy based on the lowest 

condition rating of deck, superstructure, 

and sub-structure of a bridge. 

Findings of the study concluded that 

for the Interstate System: 

• Percentages of bridges classified as 

Good, Fair, or Poor were consistent for 

the four different weighted average 

methods and the minimum condition 

rating method with little variation; 

• the minimum condition rating 

method resulted in the highest 

percentage of bridges in Poor condition; 

• percentages of bridges classified as 

Good, Fair, or Poor based on the four 

weighted average methods were not 

sensitive to the weights; and 

• bridge deck conditions alone are 

typically not the driving factor in the 

Good, Fair, or Poor classifications. 

The FHWA conducted an additional 

assessment of the different methods and 

observed that the magnitude in 

differences between condition ratings 

for individual NBI items was somewhat 

nullified when a final average or 

weighted average method was 

employed. The ‘‘Improving FHWA’s 

Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure 

Health Pilot Study Report’’ made a 

similar observation. This masking or 

obscuring of possible poor bridge 

conditions is a major concern with these 

methods. Although these methods could 

be further refined to possibly resolve 

this problem, the development, 

subjectivity, and complexity of such 

methods makes them less desirable than 

the simple minimum condition rating 

method, particularly when analyses 

indicate that a refined weighted method 

would result in the same general 

classification as the minimum condition 

rating method. 

The FHWA proposes to establish two 

bridge performance measures using a 

classification system of Good, Fair, and 

Poor. These are based on an assessment 

of bridge condition data from the NBI. 

The measures would reflect the lowest 

component condition rating for the 

bridge.42 The FHWA further proposes to 

weight this classification by the 

respective deck area of the bridge and 

express condition totals as a percentage 

of the total bridge deck area in a State. 

The two proposed performance 

measures for assessing bridge condition 

are: (1) Percentage of NHS Bridges 

Classified as in Good Condition; and (2) 

Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as 

in Poor Condition. These proposed 

performance measures are based on the 

assessment of condition ratings for the 

following NBI Items: 58—Deck, 59— 

Superstructure, 60—Substructure, and 

62—Culverts. 

B. Assessment of Selected National 

Performance Management Measures for 

the NHPP: Pavement and Bridge 

The FHWA used a common 

methodology of 12 criteria to assess the 

appropriateness of the measure for 

national use and the readiness to 

implement the performance measure 

accurately and reliably. As a result of its 

assessment, FHWA assigned one of the 

following three ratings for each 

criterion. 

• Green—Criterion is fully met for the 

candidate measure 

• Yellow—Criterion is partially met for 

the candidate measure and work is 

underway to fully meet the criterion 

• Red—Criterion is not fully met or no 

work is underway or planned that 

would allow the criterion to be met 

The FHWA used the results of this 

assessment to identify gaps that FHWA 

could address through this rulemaking 

to improve the effectiveness of the 

measures for State DOTs and MPOs to 

use to assess pavement and bridge 

conditions. The rulemaking docket 

contains a description of the 

methodology used for this assessment. 

Pavement Condition Performance 

Management Measures 

The following four pavement 

performance measures for assessing 

condition proposed by FHWA are 

calculated from data from the HPMS: (1) 

Percentage of pavements on the 

Interstate System in Good condition; (2) 

Percentage of pavements on the 

Interstate System in Poor condition; (3) 

Percentage of pavements on the NHS 

(excluding the Interstate System) in 

Good condition; and (4) Percentage of 

pavements on the NHS (excluding the 

Interstate System) in Poor condition. 

The assessment process described 

earlier in this section evaluates these 

pavement performance measures for 

assessing conditions based on existing 

state-of-the-practice. Table 1 provides a 

summary of this assessment. 

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 337 

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C 

The performance measures identified 

in this NPRM are considered to be ready 

for use when all of the criteria are rated 

Green. The remaining measures require 

additional analysis before they can be 

used on a regular basis for measuring 

the performance of the transportation 

system. The proposal outlined in this 

NPRM attempts to address some of the 

gaps that exist today for the yellow and 

red criteria so that, as a result of the 

implementation of these new 

requirements, the measures would 

result in an improved assessment rating 

and thereby better support national 

programs. The FHWA proposal 

addresses the gaps that exist today 

primarily through improvement of data 

collection techniques, requiring the use 

of established AASHTO Standards, 

establishing a standard method of 

calculation, and requiring data quality 

management programs in every State 

DOT. When establishing the proposed 

pavement condition measures, FHWA 

considered the following with respect to 

the criteria above: 

• Criterion A3—consider data 

standards that allow for new data 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.001</GPH>

Table 1. NHPP Pavements Condition Measure Analysis 

Assessment Factor/Criterion 

Al) Is the measure focused on 

comprehensive performance outcomes? 

A2) Has the measure been developed in 

partnership with key stakeholders? 

A3) Is the measure maintainable to 

accommodate changes? 

A4) Can the measure be used to support 

investment decisions, policy making 

and target establishment? 

AS) Can the measures be used to 

analyze performance trends? 

A6) Has the feasibility and practicality 

to collect, store, and report data in 

support of the measures been 

considered? 

B 1) Timeliness 

B2) Consistency 

B3) Completeness 

B4) Accuracy 

B5) Accessibility 

B6) Data Integration 

G G 

G G 

G G 

G G 

G G 

G G 

y y 

R R 

y y 

y y 

G G 

G G 

G 

G 

y 

G 

G 

y 

y 

R 

R 

R 

G 

G 

Legend: G=Green Y= Yellow R=Red A=Appropriateness B=Readiness 

G 

G 

y 

G 

G 

y 

y 

R 

R 

R 

G 

G 
338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

collection methods as technologies 

improve. Consider an approach that 

allows for pavement metrics to change 

in the future as data standards are 

updated and improved. 

• Criterion A4—recognize that the 

individual pavement metrics are not 

typically used to drive decisionmaking. 

Consider how the four metrics can be 

used collectively to develop a pavement 

measure that is more closely tied to 

decisionmaking. 

• Criterion A6—consider changes to 

the current requirements to collect, 

store, and report data to the HPMS to 

support the proposed pavement 

condition measure. 

• Criterion B1—recognize the time lag 

of data available in national data 

sources versus the availability of data in 

State-maintained sources in 

requirements associated with proposed 

pavement measures, target 

establishment, and evaluation of 

progress. 

• Criteria B2 and B4—consider an 

approach that utilizes data collection 

standards and data reporting 

requirements that would improve 

consistency and accuracy in application 

across the country and recognize that 

these improvements can take time to 

implement. Recognize that State DOTs 

have been collecting and reporting 

pavement condition metrics for many 

years and that the standards, frequency, 

and formats have changed during this 

time. 

• Criterion B3—consider an approach 

that improves the completeness of data 

coverage in the HPMS and recognize 

that State data submissions often have 

not represented the full extent of the 

NHS. 

• Criterion B6—recognize the 

essential need for a national data source 

for pavement condition and that 

implementing minor adjustments to 

existing State DOT methodologies 

would facilitate the creation of such a 

national data source at a relatively low 

cost. Furthermore, many States already 

have technology, such as Geographic 

information Systems or Enterprise 

Resource Systems that can integrate data 

from various sources to support 

decisionmaking on a larger scale to aid 

with asset management and 

performance reporting programs. 

Bridge Condition Performance 

Management Measures 

The FHWA proposes two performance 

measures for assessing bridge condition: 

(1) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS 

Bridges Classified as in Good condition; 

and (2) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS 

Bridges Classified as in Poor condition. 

This data includes the following NBI 

items: 58—Deck, 59—Superstructure, 

60—Substructure, and 62—Culverts. 

These bridge performance measures for 

assessing condition attributes were 

evaluated using the, existing state-ofthe-practice, assessment process 

described in Section A. 

All of the criteria, when applied to the 

proposed bridge performance measures, 

can be fully met largely because FHWA 

and stakeholders recognize that the NBI 

is, and has been for decades, the most 

consistent and comprehensive set of 

national data for evaluating the 

condition of bridges. Because the NBIS 

contains a consistent set of required 

standards for State DOTs to use for the 

proper inspection and evaluation of 

bridges for safety and serviceability, its 

use results in consistent and accurate 

data that goes into the NBI. Nearly every 

State DOT uses the NBI in some form as 

the basis for their current bridge 

decisionmaking. The calculation of the 

performance measures for assessing 

bridge condition provides flexibility to 

accommodate future changes such as 

the use of element level bridge data. In 

addition, the proposed measures are 

consistent with the feedback that FHWA 

has received from stakeholders. 

Therefore, FHWA considers the 

proposed bridge performance measures 

ready for use. 

In this NPRM, FHWA is proposing the 

establishment of measures to assess 

pavement and bridge conditions. These 

measures would be used by State DOTs 

and MPOs to establish targets, develop 

plans, and report on progress. As 

discussed in the background of this 

proposal, FHWA is conducting a related 

rulemaking to establish requirements for 

the development of Asset Management 

Plans; this NPRM includes proposed 

minimum standards for State DOTs to 

use to develop and operate pavement 

and bridge management systems (RIN 

2125–AF56). State DOTs use these 

systems to develop investment strategies 

for managing the conditions of their 

pavement and bridge networks. Further, 

FHWA has issued a proposed rule to 

update 23 CFR 450 to integrate 

performance in the scope of the 

metropolitan and statewide planning 

process (RIN 2125–AF52, 2132–AB10). 

Collectively, these three rulemakings 

discuss how the proposed measures 

would be used by State DOTs and MPOs 

to assess and manage pavement and 

bridge conditions. 

Transportation decision makers 

consider a range of factors that 

ultimately influence project level 

investments decisions and typically 

reflect the transportation priorities for a 

local area or region. For example, a State 

DOT may, as a priority, focus their 

decisionmaking on investments that 

first address the sections of highways 

with higher traffic volumes or fatalities. 

With the exception of the minimum 

condition requirements for Interstate 

pavements and NHS bridges, FHWA is 

not proposing an implementation 

approach in this NPRM that would 

suggest how a State DOT or MPO would 

prioritize investment decisions. State 

DOTs and MPOs consider their 

priorities through the planning process. 

The requirement of reporting and 

assessing targets would not necessarily 

dictate how a State DOT or MPO should 

prioritize their decision-making in 

establishing the targets required by 23 

U.S.C. 150(d). A State DOT or MPO may 

consider a number of factors, such as 

funding availability and local 

transportation priorities, that could 

impact the targets they ultimately 

establish for pavement and bridge 

system conditions. For this reason, as 

stated in the discussion sections for 

§§ 490.105 and 490.109, the State DOT 

or MPO may elect to establish targets 

that represent a decline in pavement or 

bridge system conditions. Once 

established, the State DOT and MPO 

would use their targets to program 

investments by selecting sections of 

highway that would be treated to 

preserve or improve condition. The 

proposed regulation allows a State DOT 

or MPO to make decisions on the 

location of project investments. The 

FHWA encourages State DOTs and 

MPOs to select projects that will 

maximize the investment returns in 

improving system conditions. 

The measures that are being proposed 

in this rulemaking are intended to 

summarize the condition based on the 

physical attributes of the pavement and 

bridge facility. Consequently, under this 

proposal a pavement or bridge would be 

rated in the same condition (Good, Fair, 

or Poor) regardless of the facility’s 

location; functional class; level of use; 

environment; or impact the facility may 

have on other aspects of transportation 

performance, such as safety and traffic 

congestion. The FHWA is seeking 

comment from the public on whether 

the measures should reflect additional 

factors that could influence decision 

making, such as facility location, 

functional class, level of use, 

environment, or impact it may have on 

other aspects of transportation 

performance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 339 

43Subpart B, addressing the HSIP-related 

performance management measures, was proposed 

in the first Federal-aid Highway Performance 

Management Measures NPRM. 

44Highway Performance Monitoring System, 

FHWA Office of Policy Information. http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/

nahpms.cfm. 

VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

General Information and Proposed 

National Performance Management 

Measures for the NHPP: Pavement and 

Bridge 

This Section-by-Section discusses 

how the proposed regulations address 

MAP–21’s charge to establish national 

performance measures for State DOTs 

and MPOs to assess the condition of 

pavements and bridges to carry out the 

NHPP. The common aspects of the 

proposed rulemaking, related to 

reporting, significant progress 

determination, and target development, 

are discussed in subpart A: General 

Information. For the bridge and 

pavement performance measures, the 

proposed rule is separated by asset.43

Subpart C addresses the Pavement 

performance measures and subpart D 

addresses the Bridge performance 

measures. Subparts C and D provide the 

requirements for the Pavement and 

Bridge performance measures, including 

methodologies for data collection, data 

requirements, a calculation process for 

evaluating condition, establishment or 

identification of minimal level of 

condition, and penalties for not 

maintaining condition. The Section-bySection discussion also addresses 

procedural discrepancies in current data 

collection and reporting and attempts to 

update them utilizing the latest research 

and state-of-the-practice experience to 

provide consistent national performance 

measures. 

A. Section-by-Section Discussion for the 

Subpart A: General Information, Target 

establishment, reporting, and NHPP 

Significant Progress Determination 

Discussion of § 490.101 General 

Definitions 

The FHWA proposes a section of 

general definitions. The first NPRM 

regarding the establishment of measures 

for carrying out the HSIP included 

several definitions (HPMS, measure, 

metric, non-urbanized area and target) 

that are repeated in this NPRM to 

provide clarity in the implementation of 

the proposed performance measures. 

The FHWA proposes to define ‘‘Full 

Extent’’ to delineate data collection 

methods that utilize a sampling 

approach versus those that use a 

continuous form of data collection. 

The FHWA proposes to include a 

definition for ‘‘Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS)’’ because it 

will be one of the data sources used in 

establishing a measure and establishing 

a target. The HPMS is an FHWA 

maintained, national level highway 

information system that includes State 

DOT-submitted data on the extent, 

condition, performance, use and 

operating characteristics of the Nation’s 

highways. The HPMS database was 

jointly developed and implemented by 

FHWA and State DOTs beginning in 

1974 and it is a continuous data 

collection system serving as the primary 

source of information for the Federal 

government about the Nation’s highway 

system. Additionally, the data in the 

HPMS is used for the analysis of 

highway system condition, 

performance, and investment needs that 

make up the biennial Condition and 

Performance Reports to Congress. These 

Reports are used by the Congress in 

establishing both authorization and 

appropriation legislation, activities that 

ultimately determine the scope and size 

of the Federal-aid highway program, 

and determine the level of Federal 

highway taxation. Increasingly, State 

DOTs, as well as the MPOs, have 

utilized the HPMS as they have 

addressed a wide variety of concerns 

about their highway systems.44

Numerous State DOTs and the MPOs 

use HPMS data and its analytical 

capabilities for supporting their 

condition/performance assessment, 

investment requirement analysis, 

strategic and state planning efforts, etc. 

The FHWA proposes to define 

‘‘mainline highway’’ to limit the extent 

of the highway system to be included in 

the scope of the proposed pavement 

performance measures. The proposed 

definition for mainline highway 

includes the primary traveled portion of 

the roadway and excludes ramps, 

climbing lanes, turn lanes, auxiliary 

lanes, shoulders, and non-normally 

traveled pavement surfaces. 

The FHWA proposes to include a 

definition for ‘‘measure’’ because 

establishing measures is a critical 

element of an overall performance 

management approach and it is 

important to have a common definition 

that the FHWA can use throughout the 

Part. To have a consistent definition for 

‘‘measure,’’ the FHWA proposes to make 

a distinction between ‘‘measure’’ and 

‘‘metric.’’ Hence, the FHWA proposes to 

define ‘‘metric’’ as a quantifiable 

indicator of performance or condition 

and to define ‘‘measure’’ as an 

expression based on a metric that is 

used to establish targets and to assess 

progress toward achieving the 

established targets. 

The FHWA proposes a definition for 

‘‘National Bridge Inventory (NBI)’’ 

because it is the data system that would 

be used to establish the measure for 

assessing the condition of the bridges on 

the NHS and the targets for the measure, 

and the assessment of progress toward 

achieving the established targets. This 

definition is based on the description of 

an inventory as required by 23 U.S.C. 

144(b)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D). 

The FHWA proposes to include a 

definition for ‘‘non-urbanized areas’’ to 

provide clarity in the implementation of 

the provision in 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that 

allows the State DOTs the option of 

selecting different targets for ‘‘urbanized 

and rural areas.’’ As written, the statute 

is silent regarding the small urban areas 

that fall between ‘‘rural’’ and 

‘‘urbanized’’ areas. Instead of only 

giving the State DOTs the option of 

establishing targets for ‘‘rural’’ and 

‘‘urbanized’’ areas, FHWA proposes to 

define ‘‘non-urbanized’’ areas to include 

both ‘‘rural’’ areas and the small urban 

areas that are larger than ‘‘rural’’ areas 

but do not meet the criteria of an 

‘‘urbanized area.’’ This would then 

allow State DOTs to establish different 

targets for urbanized and non-urbanized 

areas. For target-establishment 

purposes, the FHWA believes that these 

small urban areas are best treated with 

the ‘‘rural’’ areas, as non-urbanized 

areas, because both of these areas do not 

have the same complexities that come 

with having the population and density 

of urbanized areas and are generally 

more rural in characteristic. In addition, 

neither of these areas are treated as 

MPOs in the transportation planning 

process or given the authority under 

MAP–21 to establish their own targets. 

The FHWA proposes to include a 

definition for ‘‘Performance period’’ to 

establish a definitive period of time 

during which condition/performance 

would be measured, evaluated, and 

reported. The frequency of measurement 

and target establishment for the 

measures proposed to implement 23 

U.S.C. 150 is not directly or indirectly 

defined in statute. The FHWA proposes 

a consistent time period of 4 calendar 

years that would be used to assess nonsafety condition/performance. This time 

period aligns with the timing of the 

biennial performance reporting 

requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) 

and is consistent with a typical 

planning cycle for most State DOTs and 

MPOs (e.g., State and MPO 

transportation improvement programs 

are required to cover a 4-year period; 

metropolitan plans are also required to 

be updated every 4 or 5 years). The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

proposed calendar year basis is 

consistent with data reporting 

requirements currently in place to 

report pavement and bridge conditions, 

which are also done on a calendar year 

basis. 

The FHWA proposes a definition for 

‘‘Performance period’’ that would cover 

a 4-year period beginning on January 1 

of the calendar year in which targets are 

due to FHWA, as discussed in 

§ 490.105. Within a performance period, 

condition/performance would be 

measured and evaluated to: (1) Assess 

condition/performance with respect to 

baseline condition/performance; and (2) 

track progress toward the achievement 

of the target that represents the intended 

condition/performance level at the 

midpoint and at the end of that time 

period. The term ‘‘Performance period’’ 

applies to all proposed measures in this 

Part, except the proposed measures for 

the HSIP provided for in § 490.209 

where FHWA proposed a 1 calendar 

year period as the basis for 

measurement, target establishment and 

reporting. 

The FHWA proposes to include a 

definition for ‘‘target’’ to indicate how 

measures will be used for target 

establishment by State DOTs and MPOs 

to assess performance or condition. 

Discussion of § 490.103 Data 

Requirements 

The FHWA is proposing in § 490.103 

data requirements that apply to more 

than one subpart in part 490. Additional 

proposed data requirements that are 

unique to each subpart are included and 

discussed in their respective subpart. 

In this section, FHWA is proposing 

that State DOTs would submit 

urbanized area boundaries in 

accordance with the HPMS Field 

Manual. The boundaries of urbanized 

areas would be as identified through the 

most recent U.S. Decennial Census 

unless FHWA approves adjustments to 

the urbanized area, as submitted by 

State DOTs and allowed for under 23 

U.S.C. 101(a)(34). These boundaries are 

to be reported to HPMS in the year the 

Baseline Performance Report is due, and 

are applicable to the entire performance 

period, regardless of whether or not 

FHWA approved adjustments to the 

urbanized area boundary during the 

performance period. The FHWA 

proposes that the State DOT submitted 

boundary information would be the 

authoritative data source for the target 

scope for the additional targets for 

urbanized and non-urbanized areas 

(§ 490.105(e)(3)), progress reporting 

(§ 490.107(b)), and IRI rating 

(§ 490.313(b)(1)) for the measures 

identified in § 490.105(c)(1)–(3). As 

discussed in § 490.105(d)(3), any 

changes in urbanized area boundaries 

during a performance period would not 

be accounted for until the following 

performance period. The FHWAapproved urbanized area data available 

in HPMS on June 15th (HPMS due date) 

prior to the due date of the Baseline 

Performance Report is to be used for this 

purpose. For example, State DOTs shall 

submit their first Baseline Performance 

Period Report to FHWA by October 1, 

2016. The FHWA approved urbanized 

area data available in HPMS on June 16, 

2016 is to be used. 

Section 490.103(c) is reserved. 

In § 490.103(d), FHWA proposes that 

State DOTs would continue to submit 

NHS limit data in accordance with 

HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA 

proposed that the State DOT submitted 

NHS information would be the 

authoritative data source for 

determining measure applicability 

(§ 490.105(c)), target scope 

(§ 490.105(d)), progress reporting 

(§ 490.107(b)), and determining 

significant progress (§ 490.109(d)) for 

the measures identified in 

§ 490.105(c)(1)–(3). As discussed in 

§ 490.105(e)(3)(i), the NHS limits dataset 

referenced in the Baseline Performance 

Report are to be applied to the entire 

performance period, regardless of 

changes to the NHS approved and 

submitted to HPMS during the 

performance period. 

Discussion of § 490.105 Establishment 

of Performance Targets 

The declared policy under 23 U.S.C. 

150(a) transforms the Federal-aid 

highway program and encourages the 

most efficient investment of Federal 

transportation funds by refocusing on 

national transportation goals, increasing 

accountability and transparency in the 

Federal-aid highway program, and 

improving investment decisionmaking. 

To this end, FHWA encourages State 

DOTs and MPOs to establish targets that 

would support the national 

transportation goals while improving 

investment decision-making processes. 

A number of considerations were 

raised during the performance 

management stakeholder outreach 

sessions regarding target establishment, 

such as: Providing flexibility for State 

DOTs and MPOs, coordinating through 

the planning process, allowing for 

appropriate time for target achievement, 

and allowing State DOTs and MPOs to 

incorporate risks. Using these 

considerations, FHWA created a set of 

principles to develop an approach to 

implement the target establishment 

requirements in MAP–21. These 

principles aimed to develop an 

approach that: 

• Provides for a new focus for the 

Federal-aid program on the MAP–21 

national goals under 23 U.S.C. 150(b); 

• improves investment 

decisionmaking; 

• considers the need for local 

performance trade-off decisionmaking; 

• provides for flexibility in the 

establishment of targets; 

• allows for an aggregated view of 

anticipated condition/performance; and 

• considers budget constraints. 

In § 490.105, FHWA proposes the 

minimum requirements that would be 

followed by State DOTs and MPOs in 

the establishment of targets for all 

measures identified in § 490.105(c), 

which include the proposed measures 

in both this performance management 

NPRM and the third performance 

management NPRM. These 

requirements are being proposed to 

implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 

U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target establishment 

provisions in a manner that provides for 

the consistency necessary to evaluate 

and report progress at a State, MPO, and 

national level, while also providing a 

degree of flexibility for State DOTs and 

MPOs. 

The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(a) 

for State DOTs and MPOs to establish 

quantifiable targets for each 

performance measure identified in 

§ 490.105(c). In § 490.105(b), the 

performance targets for carrying out the 

HSIP would be established in 

accordance with § 490.209 of the first 

performance management NPRM. 

In § 490.105(d), FHWA proposes that 

State DOTs establish statewide targets 

that represent performance outcomes of 

the transportation network within the 

respective State boundary, and that 

MPOs establish targets that represent 

performance outcomes of the 

transportation network within their 

respective metropolitan planning area. 

State DOTs and, if applicable, MPOs are 

encouraged to coordinate their targetestablishment with neighboring states 

and MPOs to the extent practicable. The 

FHWA further proposes in § 490.105(d) 

that State DOTs and MPOs establish 

targets that represent performance 

outcomes of the entire transportation 

network required for proposed measures 

regardless of ownership, including NHS 

bridges that cross a State border. 

The FHWA recognizes that there is a 

limit to the direct impact the State DOT 

and the MPO can have on the 

performance outcomes within the State 

and the metropolitan planning area, 

respectively, and recognizes that the 

State DOT and the MPO need to 

consider this uncertainty when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 341 

establishing targets. For example, some 

Federal and tribal lands contain roads 

and bridges on the NHS that State DOTs 

would need to consider (as appropriate) 

when establishing targets. The FHWA 

anticipates that State DOTs and MPOs 

would need to consult with relevant 

entities (e.g., relevant MPOs, State 

DOTs, local transportation agencies, 

Federal Land Management Agencies, 

tribal governments) as they establish 

targets to better identify and consider 

factors outside of their direct control 

that could impact future condition/

performance. 

The FHWA also recognizes that the 

limits of the NHS could change between 

the time of target establishment and the 

time of progress evaluation and 

reporting for the targets for measures 

specified in sections § 490.105(c)(1) 

through (3). State DOTs may request 

modifications to the NHS, which could 

result in additions, deletions or 

relocations. In one instance with MAP– 

21, segments were added to the NHS. 

Such changes may alter the measures 

reported, which could then impact how 

an established target relates to actual 

measured performance. For example, if 

NHS limits are changed after a State 

DOT establishes the target, actual 

measured performance of the 

transportation network within the 

changed NHS limits would represent a 

different set of highways as compared to 

what was originally used to establish 

the target. This difference could impact 

a State DOT’s ability to make significant 

progress toward achieving targets. Thus, 

for establishing targets for NHS, FHWA 

believes that it will be important for the 

State DOT to ensure that the data used 

to establish the targets is accessible, and 

the information about the data is 

properly documented. Consequently, 

FHWA proposes that State DOTs would 

need to describe the extent of the NHS 

used for target establishment. The 

FHWA also proposes that State DOTs 

declare and describe their urbanized 

area boundaries. This information 

would be included, along with reporting 

targets, in the Baseline Performance 

Period Report described in 

§ 490.107(b)(1). These NHS limits and 

urbanized area boundaries are to be 

reported to HPMS in the year the 

Baseline Performance Report is due, and 

are applicable to the entire performance 

period, regardless of whether or not 

FHWA approved adjustments to the 

NHS limits during the performance 

period. In § 490.105(d)(3), FHWA 

proposes that any changes in NHS limits 

or urbanized area boundaries during a 

performance period would not be 

accounted for until the following 

performance period. 

In § 490.105(e), FHWA proposes the 

State DOT requirements for the 

establishment of targets for all measures 

identified in paragraph 490.105(c), with 

applicable transportation network for 

those targets (target scope) defined in 

paragraph 490.105(d). Pursuant to 23 

U.S.C. 150(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 150(e), 

FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(1) that 

State DOTs would establish targets 

within 1 year of the effective date of this 

rule, and for each performance period 

thereafter the State DOTs would 

establish and report the targets to 

FHWA by the due date provided in 

§ 490.107(b)(1). The FHWA anticipates 

the final rule for this proposal to be 

effective no later than October 1, 2015. 

This would allow for at least a 1-year 

period for States to establish targets so 

that they can be reported in the first 

biennial performance report which 

would be due to FHWA by October 1, 

2016. The FHWA recognizes that if the 

final rule is effective after October 1, 

2015, the due date to report State DOT 

targets for the first performance period 

may need to be adjusted. If it becomes 

clear that the final rule won’t be 

effective until after October 1, 2015, 

FHWA will consider adjusting the due 

date in the final rule or will issue 

implementation guidance that would 

provide State DOTs a 1-year period to 

establish and report targets. 

The proposed schedule would require 

the establishment and reporting of 

targets at the beginning of each 

performance period or every 4 years. 

With the exception of the allowance 

proposed in § 490.105(e)(6), FHWA 

recommends that State DOTs would not 

have the ability to change targets 

reported for a performance period. 

Considering this proposed limitation, 

State DOTs would need to provide for 

sufficient time to fully evaluate their 

targets before they are due to be 

reported to FHWA. 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 

135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.105 (e)(2) that State DOTs shall 

coordinate with relevant MPOs to 

establish consistent targets, to the 

maximum extent practicable. The 

coordination would be accomplished in 

accordance with 23 CFR 450. The 

FHWA recognizes the need for State 

DOTs and MPOs to have a shared vision 

on expectations for future condition/

performance in order for there to be a 

jointly owned target establishment 

process. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to 

establish additional targets for any of 

the proposed measures in Subparts C 

and D, beyond the required statewide 

target. The State DOT could establish 

additional targets for any number and 

combination of urbanized areas and 

could establish a target for the nonurbanized area for any or all of the 

proposed measures. This is intended to 

give the State flexibility when setting 

targets, and to aid the State in 

accounting for differences in urbanized 

and the non-urbanized area. For 

instance, a State DOT could choose to 

establish additional targets for a single 

urbanized area, a number of the 

urbanized areas, or all of the urbanized 

areas separately or collectively. For 

States that want to establish a nonurbanized target, it would be a single 

target that applies to the non-urbanized 

area statewide. If the State DOT elects 

to establish any additional targets, they 

need to be declared and described in the 

State Biennial Performance Report just 

after the start date of a performance 

period (i.e., Baseline Performance 

Period Report). The FHWA intends to 

issue guidance regarding the voluntary 

establishment of additional performance 

targets for urbanized areas and the nonurbanized area. 

If a State DOT chooses to establish 

additional performance targets, it would 

increase the number of performance 

targets that it reports. For example, at a 

minimum, State DOTs would be 

required to establish four statewide 

targets for the pavement condition 

measures, as specified in § 490.307. If a 

State DOT chooses to establish 

additional targets for all 4 pavement 

condition measures for the single largest 

urbanized area in its state, the State 

DOT would increase the total number of 

pavement condition targets to eight (4 

required targets + 4 additional 

urbanized area targets = 8). 

For each additional target established, 

State DOTs would evaluate whether 

they have made progress towards 

achieving each target and report on that 

progress in their biennial performance 

report in accordance with 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B). 

Any additional targets the State DOT 

chooses to establish would not be 

subject to the significant progress 

assessment in § 490.109. Because these 

additional targets are optional and 

subcomponents of targets established 

under § 490.105(d), including them in 

the significant progress assessment 

proposed in § 490.109 could result in 

‘‘double counting’’ during that 

assessment. The FHWA believes that 

excluding these additional targets from 

the significant progress assessment in 

§ 490.109 provides an opportunity for 

some flexibility with respect to 

establishing the targets and may 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

342 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

45 23 U.S.C. 135(f). 

46 23 U.S.C. 119(e). 

encourage State DOTs to establish these 

additional targets. 

Historically, the Census has defined 

urbanized areas every 10 years, and 

these boundaries can be adjusted (see 23 

U.S.C. 101(a)(34)). The FHWA 

recognizes that the urbanized area 

boundaries and resulting non-urbanized 

area boundary have the potential to 

change on varying schedules. Changing 

a boundary during a performance period 

may lead to changes in the measures 

reported for the area, and could impact 

how an established target relates to 

actual measured performance. Thus, 

FHWA proposes that State DOTs would 

need to describe the urbanized area 

boundaries and the non-urbanized area 

boundary in place at the start of a 

performance period in the Baseline 

Performance Period Report, and use 

those same boundaries throughout a 

performance period. This will eliminate 

the potential for inconsistencies in the 

extent of the network used to establish 

targets and calculate measures in 

urbanized areas and the non-urbanized 

area, and provide consistency in 

reporting established targets for those 

areas. 

The urbanized area boundaries are to 

be reported to HPMS in the year the 

Baseline Performance Report is due and 

are applicable to the entire performance 

period, regardless of whether or not 

FHWA approved adjustments to an area 

boundary during the performance 

period for other reasons. Any changes in 

urbanized area boundaries during a 

performance period would not be 

accounted for until the following 

performance period. 

The FHWA is seeking comments on 

this approach for establishing optional 

additional targets for urbanized areas 

and the non-urbanized area. The FHWA 

would also like comments on any other 

flexibilities it could provide to or 

identify for State DOTs related to the 

voluntary establishment of additional 

targets. Some examples include: 

• Providing options for establishing 

different additional targets throughout 

the State, particularly for the States’ 

non-urbanized area; and 

• Expanding the boundaries that can 

be used in establishing additional 

targets (e.g., metropolitan planning area 

boundaries, city limit boundaries, etc.). 

As described in § 490.105(f), an MPO 

would have the option to establish a 

quantifiable target for its metropolitan 

planning area. As described in 23 CFR 

450.312, the boundaries of the 

metropolitan planning area include, at a 

minimum, the entire existing urbanized 

area (as defined by the Census Bureau) 

plus the contiguous area expected to 

become urbanized within a 20-year 

forecast period. The FHWA recognizes 

the challenges in coordinating targets 

between State DOTs and MPOs, 

especially in cases where metropolitan 

planning areas across multiple State 

boundaries. The FHWA intends for 

State DOTs and MPOs to collectively 

consider goals and issues when 

establishing both State DOT and MPO 

targets. For reporting purposes, FHWA 

expects MPOs to report progress to the 

relevant State DOT for the entire 

metropolitan planning area. 

To illustrate the differences in 

boundaries and how they might be 

addressed for one of the pavement 

condition measures, the following 

example is provided regarding the target 

establishment boundary differences that 

could exist in the State of Maryland 

today. 

• Urbanized Areas: Based on the 2010 

Census, the State of Maryland contains 

part or all of 11 urbanized areas. Of 

these urbanized areas, 5 are shared with 

neighboring States. 

• Metropolitan Planning Areas: 

Currently, the State contains part or all 

of six metropolitan planning areas. Of 

these areas, four metropolitan planning 

areas are shared with neighboring 

States. (A map of Metropolitan Planning 

Areas and Urbanized Areas of the State 

of Maryland is included in the docket.) 

• Statewide Urbanized Area Target 

Extent: An optional State target for the 

Percentage of Interstate System lanemiles in Good condition within the 

State’s urbanized areas would represent 

those portions of the 11 urbanized areas 

within the geographic boundary of the 

State of Maryland, in aggregate. 

• Single Urbanized Area Target 

Extent: An optional urbanized area 

target for a single urbanized area would 

represent the anticipated Percentage of 

Interstate System lane-mileage in Good 

condition within the identified 

urbanized area, based on the 

corresponding boundary described 

Baseline Performance Period Report. In 

the case of the Hagerstown urbanized 

area, the target would be established for 

the portion of the urbanized area in the 

State of Maryland. 

• MPO Target Extent: Each of the six 

MPOs would establish individual 

targets for representing the anticipated 

Percentage of Interstate System lanemileage in Good condition within their 

entire metropolitan planning area, 

regardless of State boundary. In the case 

of the Hagerstown—Eastern Panhandle 

MPO in Maryland/West Virginia/

Pennsylvania, the MPO would establish 

target for Interstate System lane-mileage 

in Good pavement condition within its 

metropolitan planning boundary that 

extends beyond Maryland State 

boundary and into Pennsylvania State 

boundary, while the Maryland DOT 

would establish its target for the area 

only within its State boundary. 

The FHWA is seeking comment on 

alternative approaches that could be 

considered to effectively implement 23 

U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23 U.S.C. 

150(d)(2) considering the need for 

coordination required under 23 U.S.C. 

134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 

135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II). 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.105(e)(4) that State DOTs establish 

targets with a 2-year time horizon (i.e., 

2-year target) and a 4-year time horizon 

(i.e., 4-year target) for each performance 

period. Each performance period, 

defined in § 490.101, would begin on 

the January 1 of the year in which the 

State DOT target is reported (i.e., State 

DOT Baseline Performance Period 

Report required in § 490.107(b)(1)) to 

FHWA and would extend for a duration 

of 4 years. Additionally, the midpoint of 

a performance period would occur 2 

calendar years after the beginning of a 

performance period. Thus, 2-year targets 

would be the anticipated or intended 

condition/performance level at the 

midpoint of each performance period, 

and 4-year targets would be the 

anticipated or intended condition/

performance level at the end of each 

performance period. It is important to 

emphasize that established targets (2- 

year target and 4-year target) would 

need to be considered as interim 

conditions/performance levels that lead 

toward the accomplishment of longerterm performance expectations in the 

State DOT’s long-range statewide 

transportation plan 45 and NHS asset 

management plans.46 As defined in 

§ 490.101, a target is a numeric value 

that represents a quantifiable level of 

condition/performance in an expression 

defined by a measure. The FHWA 

proposes that a target would be a single 

numeric value representing the 

intended or anticipated condition/

performance level at a specific point in 

time. For example, the proposed 

measure, Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition (in 

§ 490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage 

of lane-miles of the Interstate System in 

Good condition (§ 490.307(f)(2)) 

expressed in one tenth of a percent. 

Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for 

this measure would be a percentage of 

lane-miles of the Interstate System in 

Good condition expressed in one tenth 

of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 

a 2-year target and a 4-year target would 

be 39.5% and 38.5%, respectively for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 343 

47 23 U.S.C. 150(e). 48 23 U.S.C. 150(e), 23 U.S.C. 135(h), and 23 

U.S.C. 119(e)(7). 

the proposed measure Percentage of 

pavements of the Interstate System in 

Good condition. 

The FHWA is proposing this 

definitive performance period while 

recognizing that planning cycles and 

time-horizons for long-term 

performance expectations differ among 

State DOTs. The FHWA felt that 

although differences exist, it was 

necessary to utilize a 4-year 

performance period considering the 

following implementation expectations: 

• Provide for a link between the 

interim, short-term targets (i.e., 2-year 

and 4-year time horizons) to individual 

State DOT’s long-term performance 

expectations as part of performancebased planning and programming 

process; 

• Ensure the time horizon is long 

enough to allow for condition/

performance change to occur through 

the delivery of programmed projects; 

• Align the schedule of reporting on 

targets and the evaluation of progress 

toward achieving the targets with the 

biennial performance reporting 

requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e); 

and 

• Report targets using a consistent 

performance period as part of the 

evaluation of the State DOTs’ 

effectiveness of performance-based 

planning process to the Congress by 

October 1, 2017, as required by 23 

U.S.C. 135(h). 

The FHWA anticipates that the State 

DOTs would establish targets for the 

measures listed in § 490.105(c) and 

report the established targets to FHWA 

by the statutory deadline for the first 

biennial report of October 1, 2016.47

The FHWA considered a number of 

alternatives for a consistent time 

horizon (i.e., performance period) across 

the State DOTs to ensure consistent 

reporting of targets and assessment of 

progress toward achieving those targets 

for carrying out the requirements in the 

statutory provisions.48

In addition, FHWA considered the 

data collection cycles associated with 

other proposed measures. The FHWA 

also assessed the inherent time lag 

between data collection and target 

establishment due to necessary data 

processing, data quality management, 

data analysis, and other required 

business processes necessary for target 

establishment. The FHWA intends to 

minimize the time lag between the end 

of a performance period and the time of 

subsequent biennial performance 

reporting under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) to 

ensure a timely assessment of progress 

toward achieving the targets. Thus, 

FHWA proposes that the first 4-year 

performance period start on January 1, 

2016, and end on December 31, 2019, 

and subsequent performance periods 

would follow thereafter, for the 

measures listed in § 490.105(c). A 

diagram for proposed performance 

periods for target establishment, 

condition/performance measure data 

collection and assessment, and biennial 

performance reporting is exhibited in 

Figure 1. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.003</GPH>
344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

As shown in Figure 1, for the first 

performance period, the latest measured 

condition/performance data through 

December 31, 2015, is the baseline 

condition/performance. The State DOTs 

would establish 2-year targets as the 

condition/performance anticipated at a 

midpoint, which would be indicated by 

the latest measured condition/

performance data through the midpoint 

of the performance period (December 

31, 2017, for the first performance 

period). Similarly, the State DOTs 

would establish 4-year targets as the 

condition/performance anticipated at 

the end of a performance period that 

would be indicated by the latest 

measured condition/performance data 

through the end of the performance 

period (December 31, 2019, for the first 

performance period). It is important to 

note that the frequency of data 

collection cycle depends on the 

individual measure. For example, the 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures provided in § 490.307(a)(1) 

and (2) would require a data collection 

frequency of 1 year as specified in 

§ 490.309(b)(1). Conversely, nonInterstate NHS condition measures, 

provided in § 490.307(a)(3) and (4), 

respectively, would require a data 

collection frequency of 2 years as 

specified in § 490.309(b)(2). 

Data collection frequency 

requirements are defined in the Data 

Requirement sections for each measure 

in the relevant subparts. This proposed 

timeline is intended to: (1) Satisfy the 

first State DOT biennial performance 

report due on October 1, 2016, as 

described in the discussion on 

§ 490.107; (2) accommodate data 

collection cycles; and (3) minimize the 

time lag between the end/midpoint of a 

performance period and the following 

biennial performance reporting date, as 

described in the discussion sections in 

§§ 490.107 and 490.109. Baseline 

condition and target establishment for 

subsequent performance periods would 

follow a similar timeline as the first 

performance period. The proposed 

2-year and 4-year targets are timed so 

that the targets are on the same cycle as 

the biennial report under 23 U.S.C. 

150(e), and are also necessary for FHWA 

to determine the significant progress for 

NHPP measures as required under 23 

U.S.C. 119(e)(7). The FHWA must make 

this determination every 2 years, after a 

State DOT submits each biennial report. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.105(e)(5) that State DOTs report 

their established targets (2-year and 4- 

year) and progress toward achieving 

their targets in the biennial performance 

report required per 23 U.S.C. 150(e) as 

specified in § 490.107. As discussed in 

§ 490.105(e)(2), State DOT coordination 

with relevant MPOs would be required 

for selection of targets. Thus, FHWA 

proposes that the State DOTs would be 

able to provide relevant MPOs’ targets to 

FHWA, upon request, each time the 

relevant MPOs establish or adjust MPO 

targets, described in § 490.105(f). 

The FHWA recognizes that State 

DOTs would need to consider many 

factors in establishing targets that could 

impact progress such as uncertainties in 

funding, changing priorities, and 

external factors (see § 490.109(e)(4)) 

outside the control of the State DOTs. 

Thus, FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(6) 

that State DOTs may adjust their 

established 4-year targets when they 

submit their State Biennial Performance 

Report just after the midpoint of the 

performance period (i.e., Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report, 

described in § 490.107(b)(2)). This target 

adjustment allowance would be limited 

to this specific report and not allowed 

at any other time during the 

performance period. The FHWA feels 

that this frequency of adjustment allows 

a State DOT to address changes they 

could not have foreseen in the initial 

establishment of 4-year targets while 

still maintaining a sufficient level of 

control in the administrative procedure 

necessary to carry out these program 

requirements in an equitable manner. 

For example, the 4-year target 

established in 2016 (the 1st State 

Biennial Performance Report illustrated 

in Figure 1) may be adjusted in 2018 

(2nd State Biennial Performance Report 

illustrated in Figure 1). The State DOT 

would report and justify this adjusted 

target in the second State Biennial 

Performance Report due on October 

2018 (i.e., Mid Performance Period 

Progress Report). The details of 

reporting requirements for adjusting a 

target are discussed in § 490.107(b)(2). 

In § 490.105(e)(7), FHWA proposes 

that State DOTs are not required to 

establish their 2-year targets in the 

beginning of the first performance 

period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial 

Performance Report illustrated in Figure 

1) for the Interstate System pavement 

condition measures, provided in 

§ 490.307(a)(1) and (2). As proposed in 

the § 490.105(e)(4) discussion, the first 

performance period baseline condition/ 

performance data would need to be 

collected prior to the start of the 

performance period for establishing 

targets. However, FHWA recognizes that 

some State DOTs may not be able to 

meet all data requirements in 

§ 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the 

first proposed performance period for 

the Interstate System pavement 

condition measure. Thus, FHWA 

proposes that for the first performance 

period, State DOTs would only be 

required to establish their 4-year targets 

in the beginning of the first performance 

period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial 

Performance Report in 2016 illustrated 

in Figure 1) for the Interstate System 

pavement condition measures. If 

necessary, the State DOTs would adjust 

their established 4-year targets at the 

midpoint of the first performance period 

(i.e., the 2nd State Biennial Performance 

Report in 2018 illustrated in Figure 1) 

as described in § 490.105(e)(6). 

Similar considerations should be 

made regarding baseline conditions/

performance. For those State DOTs who 

may not be able to collect data required 

in § 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the 

first proposed performance period, 

FHWA proposes that such State DOTs 

would not be required to establish 

baseline condition/performance in the 

1st State Biennial Performance Report in 

2016, but would update baseline 

condition/performance with the 2-year 

condition/performance at the midpoint 

(2nd State Biennial Performance Report 

illustrated in Figure 1) in 2018. Also, at 

the midpoint of the first performance 

period, FHWA would determine the 

State DOT’s 2-year targets for the 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures as ‘‘progress not determined’’ 

for the 2-year significant progress 

determination as discussed in 

§ 490.109(e)(3). 

In § 490.105(f) FHWA proposes MPO 

requirements for the establishment of 

targets for all measures identified in 

§ 490.105(c). These requirements are 

being proposed to implement the 23 

U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B) target establishment 

provisions in a manner that provides for 

a level of consistency necessary to 

evaluate and report progress at an MPO 

and the national level while providing 

for a degree of flexibility to support 

metropolitan planning needs. The 

FHWA also attempted to develop these 

target establishment requirements so 

that they could be met by all MPOs, 

recognizing that MPOs currently vary in 

capability, resource availability, and 

ability to establish performance targets. 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C), 

FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(1) that 

each MPO would establish 4-year targets 

no later than 180 days after the relevant 

State DOT establishes its targets, 

described in the discussion of 

§ 490.105(e)(1). The FHWA recognizes 

the burden on MPOs, regardless of size, 

to establish targets. In addition, MPOs 

are not directly subject to the 

requirement to evaluate the progress 

toward achieving NHPP targets. As a 

result, FHWA proposes in this section 

that MPOs would not be required to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 345 

49 23 U.S.C. 134(i). 

50 23 U.S.C. 119(e). 

establish 2-year targets, which are 

required of State DOTs under 

§ 409.105(d)(4). Thus, in case of the first 

performance period, FHWA anticipates 

that the State DOTs would establish 

targets for the measures listed in 

§ 490.105(c) prior to the first State DOT 

biennial performance report, and the 

MPOs would establish targets no later 

than 180 days thereafter. The timeline 

for target establishment for State DOTs 

is illustrated in Figure 1 in the 

discussion of § 490.105(e)(4). If the rule 

is effective on or after September 30, 

2015, MPOs may not have the 

opportunity to establish their own 

targets in time for States to consider 

those MPO targets when submitting the 

1st Baseline Performance Period Report. 

The MPOs would be required to 

establish targets for all applicable 

measures. 

Similar to the requirement for State 

DOTs, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 

134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.105(f)(2) that MPOs coordinate 

with relevant State DOT(s) to establish 

consistent targets, to the maximum 

extent practicable. This would be done 

in accordance with 23 CFR part 450. 

As part of the MPO-State DOT 

coordination in establishing State DOT 

and MPO targets described in the 

discussion of § 490.105(e)(2) and (f)(2), 

FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(3) that 

the MPOs establish targets with a 4-year 

performance period identical to the 

State DOT’s performance periods 

discussed in the Section-by-Section for 

§§ 490.101 and 490.105(e)(4). It is 

important to emphasize that established 

MPO targets (4-year target) must be 

considered as interim conditions/

performance levels that lead toward the 

accomplishment of longer-term 

performance expectations in the longerterm performance expectations in the 

MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation 

Plan 49 and relevant State DOT NHS 

asset management plans.50

The FHWA recognizes the burden on 

the MPOs to establish their own 

performance targets. Consequently, as 

proposed, the MPOs would have the 

flexibility to establish their targets using 

one of two options. The FHWA 

proposes in § 490.105(f)(4) that MPOs 

would establish targets, specific to the 

metropolitan planning area, by either: 

(1) Agreeing to plan and program 

projects so that they contribute toward 

the accomplishment of the relevant 

State DOT targets, or (2) committing to 

quantifiable targets for their 

metropolitan planning area. This 

proposal would give MPOs two options 

to establish targets. The MPOs could 

establish their own quantifiable targets. 

Alternatively, recognizing that the 

resource level and capability of some 

MPOs to reliably predict performance 

outcomes varies across the country, 

FHWA is proposing an approach that 

would allow MPOs that did not want to 

establish their own quantifiable target to 

establish targets by supporting the State 

DOT targets for performance. The MPOs 

would do this through their investment 

decisionmaking process. Regardless of 

which option MPOs use to establish 

targets, FHWA recognizes that the MPOs 

may need to work with relevant State 

DOTs to coordinate, plan, and program 

projects for their planning area. 

As stated in the § 490.105(e)(6) 

discussion, State DOTs may adjust their 

established 4-year targets when they 

submit their State Biennial Performance 

Report just after the midpoint of the 

performance period (i.e., Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report, 

described in § 490.107(b)(2)). The MPOs 

are required to establish targets 180 days 

after the date on which the relevant 

State DOT(s) establishes their targets, 

per the MPO target establishment 

requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 

134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT adjusts a 

target, as allowed under the proposed 

§§ 490.105(e)(6) and 490.107(b)(2), any 

relevant MPOs would be required to 

also re-establish targets for the same 

measures within 180 days. However, 

FHWA is proposing that the MPO only 

be required to re-establish the target if 

the MPO had originally elected to 

establish a target supporting the State 

DOT target for that measure. In that case 

the adjusted State target could directly 

impact an MPO’s investment 

decisionmaking. Specifically, FHWA 

proposes in § 490.105(f)(7) that if a State 

DOT adjusts their 4-year target in the 

State DOT’s Mid Performance Period 

Progress Report and the MPO 

established the relevant target by 

supporting the State DOT target as 

allowed under § 490.105(f)(4), then the 

MPO would be required, within 180 

days, to report to the State DOT if they 

either: (1) Agree to plan and program 

projects so that they contribute toward 

the accomplishment of State DOT 

adjusted target, or (2) commit to a new 

quantifiable 4-year target. 

As with State DOTs, FHWA 

recognizes that MPOs would need to 

consider many factors in establishing 

targets, such as uncertainties in funding, 

changing priorities, and external factors 

outside the control of the MPO. Thus, 

FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(8) that 

MPOs may adjust their established 4- 

year target in a manner that is consistent 

with agreed upon terms documented in 

the relevant Metropolitan Planning 

Agreement. The FHWA recognizes that 

for many MPOs the establishment of 

targets, especially for the first 

performance period, would be new and 

challenging and that there may be a 

need to revisit targets during the 4-year 

performance period. The FHWA 

requires State DOTs and MPOs to 

coordinate with each other throughout 

the performance period with respect to 

any target adjustments so their targets 

are consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

In § 490.105(f)(9), FHWA proposes 

that the method by which MPOs would 

report their established baseline 

condition/performance, targets, and 

progress toward achieving targets would 

be as specified in § 490.107(c). The 

FHWA further proposes in 490.105(f)(9) 

that the State would be able to provide 

MPO targets to FHWA on request after 

targets are established or adjusted by 

MPOs within the State. The FHWA 

believes that, through the coordination 

between a State DOT and relevant 

MPOs, the reporting on MPO progress 

can be shared between these two 

entities. However, FHWA expects to be 

able to request from a State DOT the 

MPO targets and reports on progress, as 

needed, to better understand 

performance expectations and outcomes 

in urbanized areas across the country. 

The State DOT and MPO would 

document the target establishment 

reporting process in the Metropolitan 

Planning Agreement, in accordance 

with 23 CFR 450. The FHWA 

encourages State DOTs to work with 

multiple MPOs to agree on a process for 

reporting that would provide a 

sufficient level of consistency to 

understand performance in urbanized 

areas collectively across the State. 

Discussion of § 490.107 Reporting on 

Performance Targets 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e), State 

DOTs are required to submit reports on 

performance targets and progress in 

achieving established targets to FHWA 

not later than October 1, 2016, and 

every 2 years thereafter. The FHWA 

evaluated whether there were any 

existing reports that could be used to 

meet these 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting 

requirements. For the non-HSIP related 

measures, FHWA determined that none 

of the existing reporting requirements 

met the statutorily required timing. In 

addition, none of the existing reports 

currently provide the consistency 

needed to implement performance 

management nationally. For these 

reasons, FHWA proposes a new biennial 

report to meet the statutory 

requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107 for 

State DOT performance reporting to be 

used— 

• In the determination of significant 

progress toward achieving NHPP targets; 

• to provide some of the information 

needed for FHWA to report to Congress 

on the performance-based planning 

process evaluation of each State DOT as 

required by 23 U.S.C. 135(h); 

• to understand performance needs, 

expectations, and progress at a State, 

regional, and national level; and 

• to provide for transparency by 

communicating the content of the report 

to the public on an externally facing 

Web site in a downloadable format. 

In § 490.107(a), FHWA proposes that 

all performance targets described in 

§ 490.105 would be subject to biennial 

performance reporting in this section. 

However, reporting on performance 

targets for carrying out the HSIP would 

be in accordance with § 490.213. In the 

National Performance Measures; HSIP 

NPRM, FHWA proposed a 1 calendar 

year period as the basis for 

measurement, target establishment, and 

reporting. As discussed in § 490.101 of 

that NPRM, a 1-year period was 

proposed to align the safety measures 

with the requirements for the common 

measures reported as a requirement of 

23 U.S.C. 402. The FHWA also proposes 

that State DOTs use an electronic 

template to deliver the report proposed 

in this section. The FHWA intends to 

provide additional guidance regarding 

the template which will include fields 

to capture all of the information that 

would be required to be reported under 

this rulemaking. 

For consistent State DOT and FHWA 

reporting, FHWA proposed a 4-year 

performance period in § 490.105(e)(4). 

The FHWA recognizes the need for 

uniform data collection timing in order 

to ensure consistency in reporting and 

repeatable target establishment and 

progress evaluation processes. Thus, in 

subsequent sections, FHWA proposes 

the timing of data collection based on 

the specified performance periods, 

described in § 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA 

proposes that data collection 

requirements for the established 

measures support the reporting 

requirements in this section and be in 

accordance with the respective Data 

Requirements section (e.g., § 490.309) 

for each measure. To ensure consistency 

in reporting, FHWA proposes that the 

reported baseline condition/

performance be derived from the latest 

data collected through the begin date of 

a performance period, the reported 

actual 2-year condition/performance 

would be derived from the latest data 

collected through the midpoint of a 

performance period, and the reported 

actual 4-year condition/performance 

would be derived from the latest data 

collected through the end date of a 

performance period. This is illustrated 

in Figure 1 in the discussion for 

§ 490.105(e)(4). 

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b) 

that State DOTs submit to FHWA three 

types of Biennial Performance Reports: 

Baseline Performance Period Report, 

Mid Performance Period Progress Report 

and Full Performance Period Progress 

Report. The FHWA proposes to make a 

distinction between the three reports to 

emphasize the differences in content 

while aligning the reporting process to 

the proposed target establishment, 

progress evaluation, and other 

performance reporting requirements. 

Figure 2 is a timeline of the proposed 

reporting timeline for the Biennial 

Performance Reports. The proposed 

requirements identify three distinct 

biennial reports (baseline, mid and full) 

and State DOTs will be expected to 

provide information for at least one of 

these reports every 2 years. Because 

these reports would be required for 

consecutive 4-year performance periods, 

the information provided in the Full 

Performance Period Report would be 

provided at the same time and may 

include some of the same information as 

the Baseline Performance Period Report 

for the next performance period. As 

discussed previously, FHWA is 

proposing to provide for an electronic 

template that State DOTs would use to 

capture the information required in each 

of the three reports discussed in 

§ 490.107(b). It is envisioned that this 

electronic template would provide the 

State DOT all of the relevant fields for 

the information that would be due at the 

corresponding 2-year point. This 

approach would allow State DOTs to 

provide all of the required baseline and 

progress reporting information at one 

time. The proposed regulations identify 

three distinct reports to clarify the 

purpose and timing of information that 

would be required to be reported every 

2 years. 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 347 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–C 

The FHWA proposes the requirement 

for the Baseline Performance Period 

Report in § 490.107(b)(1), where the 

State DOTs would be required to submit 

a Baseline Performance Period Report 

no later than October 1 of the first year 

of a performance period. The FHWA is 

proposing that the first performance 

period would begin on January 1, 2016, 

which would require State DOTs to 

submit their first Baseline Performance 

Period Report no later than October 1, 

2016. Subsequent Baseline Performance 

Period Reports would be due no later 

than October 1 every 4 years thereafter. 

The required contents for the Baseline 

Performance Period Report are 

discussed in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii). The 

FHWA is proposing that the Baseline 

Performance Period Report would be the 

official source of the non-safety targets 

established by the State DOT. To 

document the established targets, 

FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A) 

that State DOTs would report both their 

established 2-year and 4-year targets for 

each measure listed in 490.105(c) for the 

current performance period. 

Considering the proposed phase-in of 

new requirements for Interstate System 

pavement condition measures discussed 

in § 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not 

be required to report 2-year targets for 

Interstate System pavement measures in 

the Baseline Performance Period Report 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.004</GPH>
348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for the first performance period. If a 

State DOT elects to establish additional 

targets for urbanized and non-urbanized 

areas, as described in § 490.105(e)(3), 

the State DOT would be required to 

include these targets (both 2-year target 

and 4-year target) in the report. 

Although FHWA would not approve 

the State DOT submitted targets, a 

discussion of the basis for each 

established target would be included in 

the Baseline Performance Period Report. 

The FHWA believes that this discussion 

is needed to explain the State DOT’s 

basis for the selection of a target. The 

FHWA intends to publish the State DOT 

established targets on a publicly 

available Web site with the target basis 

discussion. It is important to note that, 

although other MAP–21 required plans 

and reports may discuss and use targets, 

FHWA is proposing that only the targets 

reported in the Baseline Performance 

Period Report and the HSIP report 

would be viewed by FHWA as those 

that are established by the State DOT to 

meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 

150(d). 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B) that the State DOTs 

report baseline condition/performance 

associated with each target reported to 

represent the latest condition/

performance data collected through the 

begin date of a performance period. 

Considering the first performance 

period is proposed to begin on January 

1, 2016, the baseline condition/

performance for this performance period 

would be the most recent condition/

performance that represents actual 

condition/performance through 

December 31, 2015. Considering the 

proposed phase-in of new requirements 

for Interstate System pavement 

condition measures discussed in 

§ 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not 

be required to report baseline conditions 

for Interstate System pavement 

measures in the Baseline Performance 

Period Report for the first performance 

period. If a State DOT elects to establish 

additional targets for urbanized and 

non-urbanized areas as described in 

§ 490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would 

report baseline condition/performance 

that represent these areas in addition to 

the statewide baseline condition/

performance. As an example, for the 

Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition 

measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a 

percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 

System in Good condition 

(§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth 

of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that 

a baseline condition/performance for 

this measure would be a percentage of 

lane-miles of the Interstate System in 

Good condition expressed in one tenth 

of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 

baseline condition/performance would 

be 37.7% for the proposed measure 

Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs 

would be required to also include a 

discussion in the Baseline Performance 

Period Report, to the maximum extent 

practical, of how the established 2-year 

and 4-year targets support longer term 

performance expectations in other 

performance-related plans, such as the 

State asset management plan and the 

long-range statewide transportation 

plan. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) that State DOTs 

would be required to report the 

geographic boundaries and Decennial 

Census population data used to 

determine target scope, IRI rating and 

establish any additional targets for 

urbanized and non-urbanized areas. 

Similarly, in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E), 

FHWA proposes that State DOTs would 

be required to report the NHS network 

limits used for target establishment. The 

State DOT would report both the 

urbanized area boundaries and NHS 

limits used for target establishment by 

identifying the corresponding data 

inventory year of the HPMS that 

includes this information. Using HPMS 

data items for the data year identified by 

the State, FHWA would be able to 

extract pavement and bridge condition 

data for the appropriate NHS and/or 

urbanized area the State DOT used to 

establish targets. The FHWA would use 

this information in making its progress 

determinations in future years. It is the 

State’s responsibility to ensure that the 

data entered into HPMS reflects the 

information that is used for target 

establishment. 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 349 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–C 

The FHWA proposes the requirement 

for the Mid Performance Period Progress 

Report in § 490.107(b)(2). In 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(i), FHWA proposes that 

State DOTs would be required to submit 

a Mid Performance Period Progress 

Report no later than October 1 of the 

third year of a performance period. The 

FHWA is proposing that the first 

performance period would begin on 

January 1, 2016, which would require 

State DOTs to submit their first Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report no 

later than October 1, 2018, and 

subsequent Mid Performance Period 

Progress Reports would be due no later 

than October 1 every 4 years thereafter. 

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes 

the required contents for the Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report. In 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes 

that State DOTs would be required to 

report 2-year condition/performance in 

each Mid Performance Period Progress 

Report. As exhibited in Figure 3, FHWA 

proposes that the 2-year condition/

performance would be reported to 

represent the actual condition/

performance derived from the latest 

measured condition/performance 

through the midpoint of a performance 

period. Considering the first 

performance period is proposed to begin 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.005</GPH>
350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

51The performance measures for performance of 

the Interstate System and performance of the nonInterstate NHS will be proposed in the third performance measures NPRM. 

on January 1, 2016, 2-year condition/

performance for this performance period 

would be the most recent conditions/

performance that represents actual 

conditions/performance through 

December 31, 2017 (illustrated in Figure 

3). 

Considering the proposed phase-in of 

new requirements for Interstate System 

pavement condition measures discussed 

in § 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would be 

required to report the 2-year actual 

Interstate System pavement conditions 

as the baseline condition by updating 

their Baseline Performance Period 

Report for the first performance period. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) that State DOTs 

would also include a discussion of 

progress made toward the achievement 

of 2-year targets established for the 

current performance period. In this 

discussion, State DOTs would present a 

comparison of 2-year condition/

performance with the 2-year targets that 

were established for the performance 

period. For example, in the first Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report in 

2018, a State would compare the actual 

condition/performance through 2017 

with the 2-year targets established for 

the first performance period and discuss 

why targets were or were not achieved. 

This discussion could describe 

accomplishments achieved, planned 

activities, circumstances that led to 

actual conditions/performance, or any 

other information that State DOT feel 

would adequately explain progress. 

Although this explanation would not be 

used in the determination of significant 

progress, as described in § 490.109, this 

information would be made available to 

the public to provide an opportunity for 

the State DOT to discuss actual 

outcomes achieved. As an example, the 

Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition 

measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a 

percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 

System in Good condition 

(§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth 

of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that 

a 2-year condition/performance for this 

measure would be a percentage of lanemiles of the Interstate System in Good 

condition expressed in one tenth of a 

percent. As a hypothetical example, 2- 

year condition/performance would be 

39.2% for the proposed measure 

Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) that, in each Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report, 

State DOTs would include discussion 

on the effectiveness of the investment 

strategy documented in the State asset 

management plan for the NHS. The 

FHWA is reserving 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(D). The statutory 

requirement for State DOTs to include a 

discussion on ways in which State 

DOTs are addressing congestion at 

freight bottlenecks, including those 

identified in the National Freight 

Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the 

third Performance Measure NPRM. This 

content is required as part of the report 

under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4). The 

FHWA recognizes that the Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report for 

the first performance period may be 

impacted by the timing of the 

implementation of the new NHS asset 

management plan requirement. The 

FHWA intends to issue further guidance 

if the timing of this plan would impact 

a State DOT’s ability to comply with the 

requirements proposed in 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C). 

As discussed in § 490.105(e)(6), 

FHWA recognizes the challenges that 

State DOTs may face in target 

establishment and, as a result, proposes 

to allow State DOTs to adjust their 4- 

year targets. The FHWA is proposing in 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(E) that State DOTs 

would report any adjustments to their 4- 

year targets in the Mid Performance 

Period Progress Report. The FHWA 

proposes that this target adjustment 

allowance would be limited to this 

specific report and not allowed prior to, 

or following, the submittal of the Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report. For 

example, if a State DOT elects to adjust 

a 4-year target established in its first 

Baseline Performance Period Report in 

2016, the State DOT would only be able 

to adjust the 4-year target in its Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report in 

2018. In addition to reporting the 

adjusted 4-year target, the State DOT 

would be required to include a 

discussion on the basis for the adjusted 

4-year target(s) for the performance 

period and a discussion on how the 

adjusted targets support expectations 

documented in longer range plans, such 

as the State asset management plan and 

the long-range statewide transportation 

plan. 

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F), FHWA 

proposes that the State DOTs would 

discuss the progress they have made 

toward the achievement of the 2-year 

targets reported in the current Baseline 

Performance Period Report that would 

had been established for the NHPP 

measures specified in § 490.105(c)(1) 

through (3).51 Additionally, State DOTs 

would provide information to discuss 

how the actual 2-year condition/

performance levels compare with the 

NHPP targets. Although this discussion 

would not be used in the determination 

of significant progress for the NHPP, 

this information would be made 

available to the public to provide an 

opportunity for the State DOT to discuss 

actual outcomes related to the NHPP. 

For example, the State DOT may use 

this discussion to explain how they 

effectively and efficiently delivered a 

program designed to achieve 2-year 

targets, how this may have resulted in 

actual condition/performance 

improvements for the NHPP, and how 

the State DOT would deliver a program 

to make significant progress toward 

achieving 4-year targets for the NHPP. 

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA is 

proposing that State DOTs would report 

any factors that it could not have 

foreseen and were outside of their 

control that impacted its ability to make 

significant progress for the NHPP 2-year 

targets. This discussion would be used 

by FHWA to consider the application of 

the proposed consideration of 

extenuating circumstances discussed in 

§ 490.109(e)(4). 

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(H), FHWA 

proposes that if FHWA determines that 

a State DOT has not made significant 

progress toward the achievement of 

NHPP targets, in two consecutive 

biennial FHWA determinations, then 

the State DOT would include a 

description of the actions they will 

undertake to better achieve NHPP 

targets as required under 23 U.S.C. 

119(e)(7). For example, if either of the 

Interstate pavement condition targets 

did not make significant progress in 

previous two determinations 

(determinations at midpoint and the end 

of previous performance period), then 

the State DOT would include in the 

current Mid Performance Period Report 

a description of the actions the State 

DOT will undertake to improve 

conditions with respect to both 

Interstate pavement condition measure. 

If FHWA determines that the State DOT 

has achieved significant progress, then 

the State DOT does not need to include 

such description in the Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report. 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 351 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–C 

The FHWA proposes the requirement 

for the Full Performance Period Progress 

Report in § 490.107(b)(3). In § 490.107 

(b)(3)(i), FHWA proposes that State 

DOTs be required to submit a Full 

Performance Period Progress Report no 

later than October 1 of the first year 

following the completion of a 

performance period. The FHWA is 

proposing that the first performance 

period would begin on January 1, 2016, 

which would require State DOTs to 

submit their first Full Performance 

Period Progress Report no later than 

October 1, 2020, and subsequent Full 

Performance Period Progress Reports 

would be due no later than October 1 

every 4 years thereafter. 

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA proposes 

the required contents for Full 

Performance Period Progress Report. 

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA 

proposes that State DOTs would be 

required to report 4-year condition/

performance in each Full Performance 

Period Progress Report. As exhibited in 

Figure 4, FHWA proposes that the 4- 

year condition/performance be reported 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.007</GPH>

Discussion of Full Performance Period Reports 

Biennial 

Performance Reports 

Determination 

Data Collection 

for measures 

Performance 

Period 

Performance Period 

Baseline 

Performance 

Period 

for 1st 

Performance 

Period Oct 

1, 

Performance 

Period 

Period 

Mid 

1, 

Adjustll!d 4·year 

for the lst 

Performance 

Period (optional) 

Mid 

Performance 

Period 

Oct 1, 

Figure 4 -Alternating Biennial Performance Reports - The Full Performance Period 

Report 
352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

52The performance measures for performance of 

the Interstate System and performance of the nonInterstate NHS will be proposed in the third 

performance measures NPRM. 

53The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at 

79 FR 31784. 

to represent the actual condition/

performance derived from the latest 

measured condition/performance 

through the end of a performance 

period. Considering the first 

performance period is proposed to begin 

on January 1, 2016, the 4-year 

condition/performance for this 

performance period would be the most 

recent conditions/performance that 

represents actual conditions/

performance through December 31, 2019 

(illustrated in Figure 4). As an example, 

the Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition 

measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a 

percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 

System in Good condition 

(§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth 

of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that 

a 4-year condition/performance for this 

measure would be a percentage of lanemiles of the Interstate System in Good 

condition expressed in one tenth of a 

percent. As a hypothetical example, 4- 

year condition/performance would be 

37.7% for the proposed measure 

Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B), that the State 

DOTs would also include a discussion 

of progress made toward the 

achievement of 4-year targets 

established for the relevant performance 

period. In this discussion, State DOTs 

would present a comparison of 4-year 

condition/performance with the 4-year 

targets that were established for the 

performance period. For example, in the 

first Full Performance Period Progress 

Report in 2020, a State would compare 

the actual condition/performance 

through 2019 with the 4-year targets 

established for the first performance 

period and discuss why targets were or 

were not achieved. This discussion 

could describe accomplishments 

achieved, planned activities, 

circumstances that led to actual 

conditions/performance or any other 

information that State DOT would feel 

would adequately explain progress. 

Although this explanation would not be 

used in the determination of significant 

progress, this information would be 

made available to the public to provide 

an opportunity for the State DOT to 

discuss actual outcomes achieved. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) that, in each Full 

Performance Period Progress Report, 

State DOTs would include discussion 

on the effectiveness of the investment 

strategy documented in the State asset 

management plan for the NHS. The 

FHWA is reserving 

§ 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(D). The statutory 

requirement for State DOTs to include a 

discussion on ways in which State 

DOTs are addressing congestion at 

freight bottlenecks, including those 

identified in the National Freight 

Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the 

third Performance Measure NPRM. This 

content is required as part of the report 

under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4). 

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(E), FHWA 

proposes that the State DOTs would 

discuss the progress they have made 

toward the achievement of the 4-year 

targets reported in the current Baseline 

Performance Period Report, or adjusted 

in the current Mid Performance Period 

Progress Report, that would had been 

established for the NHPP measures 

specified in § 490.105(c)(1) through 

(3).52 Additionally, State DOTs would 

provide information to discuss how the 

actual 4-year condition/performance 

levels compare with the NHPP targets. 

Although this discussion would not be 

used in the determination of significant 

progress for the NHPP, this information 

would be made available to the public 

to provide an opportunity for the State 

DOT to discuss actual outcomes related 

to the NHPP. For example, the State 

DOT may use this discussion to explain 

how they effectively and efficiently 

delivered a program designed to achieve 

targets and how this may have resulted 

in actual condition/performance 

improvements for the NHPP. 

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA is 

proposing that State DOTs would report 

any factors that it could not have 

foreseen and were outside of their 

control that impacted its ability to make 

significant progress for the NHPP 4-year 

targets. This discussion would be used 

by FHWA to consider the application of 

the proposed consideration of 

extenuating circumstances discussed in 

§ 490.109(e)(5). 

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA 

proposes that if FHWA determines that 

a State DOT has not made significant 

progress toward the achievement NHPP 

targets, in two consecutive biennial 

FHWA determinations, then the State 

DOT would include a description of the 

actions they would undertake to better 

achieve NHPP targets as required under 

23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if 

either of the NHS bridge condition 

targets did not make significant progress 

in previous two determinations 

(determination at the end of previous 

performance period and determination 

at the midpoint of current performance 

period), then the State DOT would 

include in the current Full Performance 

Period Report) a description of the 

actions the State DOT will undertake to 

improve conditions with respect to both 

Interstate pavement condition measures. 

If FHWA determines that the State DOT 

has achieved significant progress, then 

the State DOT does not need to include 

such description in the Full 

Performance Period Progress Report. 

The FHWA proposes, in § 490.107(c), 

that MPOs document the manner in 

which they report their established 

targets within the Metropolitan 

Planning Agreement required by 23 CFR 

450. The MPOs would report their 

established targets to the relevant State 

DOTs in a manner that is agreed upon 

by both parties and documented in the 

Metropolitan Planning Agreement. The 

FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(5), that 

MPOs would report targets to the State 

DOT in a manner that would allow the 

State DOT to provide FHWA, upon 

request, all of the targets established by 

relevant MPOs. The FHWA also 

proposes that MPOs would report 

baseline condition/performance, and 

progress toward the achievement of 

their targets, in the system performance 

report in the metropolitan 

transportation plan, in accordance with 

23 CFR 450. 

Discussion of § 490.109 Assessing 

Significant Progress Towards Achieving 

the Performance Targets for the NHPP 

In § 490.109, FHWA proposes the 

method by which FHWA would 

determine if a State DOT has achieved 

or is making significant progress toward 

the achievement of their NHPP 

performance targets as required by 23 

U.S.C. 119(e)(7). Although this 

determination could directly impact 

State DOTs, MPOs could also be 

indirectly impacted as a result of the 

link between metropolitan and 

statewide planning and programming 

decisionmaking. This rulemaking 

discusses the approach that would be 

taken by FHWA to assess State DOT 

performance progress, but does not 

include a discussion on the method that 

may be used by FHWA to assess the 

performance progress of MPOs. 

Interested persons should refer to the 

updates to the Statewide and 

Metropolitan Planning regulations for 

any discussions on the review of MPO 

performance progress. (RIN 2125– 

AF52).53

The FHWA recognizes the risks 

associated with target establishment and 

that there may be factors outside of a 

State DOT’s control that could impact 

its ability to achieve a target. A number 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 353 

54AASHTO (2013), SCOPM Task Force Findings 

on MAP–21 Performance Measure Target-Setting. 

http://scopm.transportation.org/Documents/

SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20Findings%20

on%20Performance%20Measure%20TargetSetting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf. 

55For example, assuming a determination would 

be made in 2021, that period-end determination for 

1st performance period would be based on 

information submitted in the 2016 Mid Performance 

Period Report and the 2020 Full Performance 

Period Report. The next determination made in 

2023 would be based on information submitted in 

the 2020 Baseline Performance Period Report/2022 

Mid Performance Period Progress Report 

Performance Period Report and the 2020 Full 

Performance Period Report. 

56The performance measures for performance of 

the Interstate System and performance of the nonInterstate NHS will be proposed in the third 

performance measures NPRM. 

of factors were raised as part of the 

performance management stakeholder 

outreach sessions regarding target 

establishment and progress assessment, 

including: the impact of funding 

availability on performance outcomes, 

the reliability of the current state-ofpractice to predict outcomes resulting 

from investments at a system level, the 

impact of uncertain events or events 

outside the control of a State DOT on 

performance outcomes, the need to 

consider multiple performance 

priorities in making investment trade-off 

decisions, and the challenges with 

balancing local and national objectives. 

The FHWA considered these risks and 

factors in its evaluation of different 

approaches to implement this provision. 

The FHWA recognizes that the State 

DOTs and MPOs have to consider 

multiple performance priorities in 

making investment trade-off decisions 

and that there are challenges with 

balancing local and national objectives. 

During outreach, stakeholders raised a 

number of concerns regarding progress 

assessment, including: 54

• The desire to foster balanced and 

sound decisions rather than focusing on 

achieving one target at the expense of 

another; 

• the desire to assess progress using 

quantitative and qualitative input; and 

• the desire to avoid unachievable 

targets. 

Thus, FHWA plans to implement an 

approach that balances the uncertainty 

facing State DOTs in predicting future 

performance with the need to provide 

for a fair and consistent process to 

determine compliance. The approach 

being proposed by FHWA is based on 

the following principles: 

• Focus the Federal-aid highway 

program on the MAP–21 national goals 

in 23 U.S.C. 150(b); and 

• recognize that State DOTs need to 

consider fiscal constraints in their target 

establishment. 

Because targets would be established 

for an entire system, FHWA 

acknowledges that State DOTs may 

make small incremental changes within 

that system that would not necessarily 

appear in a quantitative assessment. In 

some instances, even a modest increase 

in improvement when evaluating on a 

system-wide basis, would constitute 

significant progress. Accordingly, 

FHWA proposes that for each NHPP 

target, progress toward the achievement 

of the target would be considered 

‘‘significant’’ when either of the 

following occur: The actual condition/

performance level is equal to or better 

than the State DOT established target; or 

actual condition/performance is better 

than the State DOT identified baseline 

condition/performance. The FHWA 

believes that any improvement over the 

baseline, which represents a 0.1% 

improvement over 4 years, should be 

viewed as significant progress 

considering the fiscal short falls and 

financial uncertainties many State DOTs 

are faced with today. Although a change 

of 0.1% may appear insignificant, this 

degree of improvement to a pavement or 

bridge system is difficult to achieve. In 

many States this level of change would 

require improvements to hundreds, if 

not thousands, of miles of pavements 

and/or bridges. The FHWA reviewed the 

extent to which State DOTs have been 

able to actually change system 

conditions of their pavements and 

bridges in recent years to validate this 

view of significant progress. This review 

supported FHWA’s belief that any 

improvement should be considered 

significant as many State DOTs have 

seen minimal or no improvements in 

the condition of their pavement and 

bridge networks in recent years. This is 

the case even with the influx of funding 

State DOTs were able to utilize through 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. For these 

reasons, FHWA believes that any 

improvement over the baseline should 

be viewed as significant progress. 

The FHWA believes that State DOTs 

would, through a transparent and public 

process, want to establish or adjust 

targets that strive to improve the overall 

performance of the Interstate and 

National Highway systems. For this 

reason, FHWA did not want to consider 

an approach to determine significant 

progress that would be difficult to meet 

as it could discourage the establishment 

of ‘‘reach’’ targets due to the perceived 

unmanageable risks that would need to 

be assumed by State DOTs. The FHWA 

feels that the progress assessment 

approach proposed in this NPRM, 

which considers improvement from 

baseline conditions to be significant, 

would not discourage State DOTs from 

establishing targets to improve the 

overall conditions of the Interstate 

System and non-Interstate NHS. 

The FHWA therefore proposes a 

three-step process to determine if a State 

DOT has made significant progress 

toward the achievement of their NHPP 

targets. This proposed process would be 

completed by FHWA each time the State 

DOT submits their Mid Performance 

Period Progress Report and their Full 

Performance Period Progress Report. 

The FHWA proposes that the significant 

progress determination process for two 

consecutive reporting periods would be 

done on an ongoing basis and would not 

restart at the beginning of each 

performance period.55

• Step 1: The State DOT would 

evaluate and report the progress they 

have made toward the achievement of 

each target.56 This evaluation would be 

documented in the discussion of the 

progress achieved since the most recent 

report. The State DOT would document 

in their Biennial Performance Reports 

any extenuating circumstances outside 

their control they may have impacted 

their ability to achieve progress. 

• Step 2: The FHWA would review 

the completeness of the content 

provided in their Biennial Performance 

Reports and would determine if any 

documented extenuating circumstances 

would be considered. State DOTs would 

provide any additional information to 

FHWA, upon request, if the report is 

incomplete. 

• Step 3: The FHWA would 

determine if the State DOT has made 

significant progress for each target using 

the following sources: 

Æ Data contained within the HPMS 

for targets established for pavement 

condition measures, as specified in 

§ 490.105(c)(1) and (2); 

Æ Data contained in the NBI for 

targets established for bridge condition 

measures, as specified in 

§ 490.105(c)(3); and 

In § 490.109(a), FHWA proposes that 

it would determine whether the State 

DOT has achieved or has made 

significant progress toward achieving 

each of the State DOT targets for the 

NHPP measures separately. 

The FHWA proposes in § 490.109(b) 

that FHWA would determine whether a 

State DOT has or has not made 

significant progress toward the 

achievement of NHPP targets at the 

midpoint and the end of each 

performance period. 

In § 490.109(c), FHWA proposes that 

FHWA would determine significant 

progress toward the achievement of a 

State DOT’s NHPP targets after the State 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

354 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DOT submittal of the Mid Performance 

Period Progress Report and after the 

State DOT submittal of the Full 

Performance Period Progress Report. 

This process, which is described in the 

discussion of § 490.107(b), would follow 

the proposed schedule illustrated in 

Figures 3 and 4. The FHWA would 

make a significant progress 

determination for the NHPP every 2 

years. The FHWA would notify all State 

DOTs of the outcome of the 

determination within a reasonable time 

and would advise any State DOTs that 

would need to add additional 

information to their next biennial report 

(see 450.109(f)). The FHWA intends to 

post State DOT targets, actual condition, 

and progress reports on an externally 

facing Web site. This information would 

provide for greater transparency and 

allow the public access to the progress 

State DOTs have made in achieving 

their targets. The FHWA does not intend 

to post the significant progress 

determinations on the Web site but will 

make this information available in an 

electronic format on request. 

The FHWA also expects that during a 

performance period, State DOTs would 

routinely monitor leading indicators, 

such as program delivery status, to 

assess if they are on track to make 

significant progress toward achievement 

of a State DOT’s NHPP targets. If a State 

DOT anticipates it may not make 

significant progress, it is encouraged to 

work with FHWA and seek technical 

assistance during the performance 

period to identify the actions that can be 

taken to improve progress toward 

making significant progress. The FHWA 

also seeks comment on whether it 

should require State DOTs to more 

frequently (e.g., annually) evaluate and 

report the progress they have made. 

The FHWA desires to use national 

datasets in a consistent manner as a 

basis for its determination of a State 

DOT’s significant progress toward the 

achievement of NHPP targets. The 

FHWA is proposing to determine actual 

pavement and bridge conditions from 

the HPMS and NBI, respectively, in a 

manner that could be replicated by State 

DOTs and others that may have interest 

in assessing actual pavement and bridge 

conditions. Thus, in § 490.109(d), 

FHWA proposes to use: The HPMS as 

the data source to determine actual 

pavement conditions; the NBI as the 

data source to determine actual bridge 

condition measures; and NHS limits and 

urbanized area boundaries identified in 

the Baseline Performance Period Report. 

The data source for performance of the 

Interstate System and the non-Interstate 

NHS measures will be proposed in the 

third Federal-aid Highway Performance 

Measures NPRM. 

The FHWA is proposing a period of 

approximately 60 days for Interstate 

pavements and bridges and 90 days for 

non-Interstate NHS pavements and 

bridges after the State DOT submits data 

to the HPMS and NBI for the State DOT 

to update the data to address missing or 

incorrect data. Considering this time 

allowance, FHWA is proposing that 

specific dates be established to extract 

data from the HPMS and NBI. The 

FHWA would use this data to determine 

significant progress toward the 

achievement of NHPP targets and assess 

the pavement and bridge minimum 

condition. These dates are necessary in 

order to make significant progress 

determinations in a timely manner and 

to determine compliance with the 

minimum condition requirements in 

sufficient time to apply any resulting 

obligation, transfer, or set-aside 

requirements by the next fiscal year. 

The FHWA is proposing the following 

dates to extract data from the HPMS and 

the NBI to determine actual conditions: 

• June 15—The FHWA is proposing 

to extract data from the HPMS and the 

NBI on this date to determine the actual 

Interstate System pavement conditions 

and NHS bridge conditions. This date is 

needed to provide for sufficient time to 

carry out any penalties resulting from 

non-compliance with the minimum 

condition requirements in 23 U.S.C. 

119(f); 

• August 15—The FHWA is 

proposing to extract data from the 

HPMS on this date to determine the 

actual non-Interstate NHS pavement 

conditions. This date is needed to 

provide for sufficient time to make a 

determination of significant progress for 

the achievement of NHPP targets. 

In § 490.109(e), FHWA proposes a 

process for significant progress 

determination for each established 

NHPP target. In paragraph (e)(1), FHWA 

proposes that FHWA would assess how 

the target established by State DOT 

compares to the actual condition/

performance using the data/information 

sources described in § 490.109(d). In 

paragraph (e)(2), FHWA proposes that 

FHWA would determine that a State 

DOT has made significant progress for 

each 2-year or 4-year NHPP target if 

either: (i) The actual condition/

performance level is better than the 

baseline condition/performance 

reported in the State DOT Baseline 

Performance Period Report; or (ii) the 

actual condition/performance level is 

equal to or better than the established 

target. For illustrative purposes, 2-year 

and 4-year evaluations where improving 

targets were established for the first 

performance period are shown in Figure 

5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 355 

The FHWA recognizes that State 

DOTs have to consider their fiscal 

constraints in target establishment and 

acknowledges that, in some cases, 

anticipated condition/performance 

could be projected to decline from (or 

sustain) the baseline condition/

performance due to lack of funding, 

changing priorities, etc. In these cases 

State DOTs should document why they 

project a decline in condition in their 

Biennial Performance Reports as 

discussed in paragraph 

§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). The FHWA 

proposes that significant progress could 

still be made in cases where the 

established target indicates a decline 

from (or sustain) the baseline condition/ 

performance. For the decline/sustain 

condition/performance scenario, FHWA 

proposes that significant progress is 

made for a target when actual condition/ 

performance level is equal to or exceeds 

the target. For illustrative purposes, 2- 

year and 4-year evaluations where 

declining targets were established for 

the first performance period are shown 

in Figure 6. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.008</GPH>
356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

As discussed in § 490.105(e)(7), 

FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs 

may not be able to collect the data 

required in § 490.309(b)(1) for the 

Interstate System pavement condition 

prior to the start of the first performance 

period. Considering this limitation, 

FHWA proposed in § 490.109(e)(3) that 

for the first performance period, the 

State DOTs would not be required to 

report their 2-year targets and their 

baseline condition for the Interstate 

System pavement condition measures at 

the beginning of the first performance 

period. Consequently, FHWA proposes 

in § 490.109(e)(3) that progress towards 

the achievement of 2-year targets for the 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures would not be subject to the 

FHWA determination under 

§ 490.109(e)(2), even if they elect to 

collect the data needed to calculate the 

Interstate System pavement measures in 

the first 2 years of the first performance 

period. 

The FHWA proposes to accomplish 

this by categorizing the 2-year targets for 

the Interstate System pavement 

condition measures as ‘‘progress not 

determined,’’ which would exclude 

these targets from the FHWA 

determination under § 490.109(e)(2). 

The FHWA expects that some State 

DOTs would adjust their established 4- 

year targets at the midpoint of the first 

performance period because they may 

have had limited baseline data available 

to them when they first established the 

target. For the first performance period, 

FHWA would determine significant 

progress toward the achievement of a 

State DOT’s Interstate System pavement 

condition targets based on HPMS data 

extracted on June 15 of the year in 

which the Full Performance Period 

Progress Report is due. The FHWA 

recognizes that some State DOTs would 

be able to establish and report baseline 

condition and 2-year targets for the 

proposed Interstate System pavement 

condition measures in their first 

Baseline Performance Period Report. 

However, FHWA proposes that the 

process established in this section 

applies to all State DOTs in order to 

ensure uniformity in the progress 

determination process. 

In § 490.109(e)(4), FHWA proposes 

that if a State DOT does not provide 

sufficient data and/or information for 

FHWA to make a significant progress 

determination for NHPP target(s), then 

that State DOT would be deemed to not 

have made significant progress made for 

those individual NHPP target(s). 

If a State DOT encounters extenuating 

circumstances beyond its control, the 

State DOT would document the 

explanation of the extenuating 

circumstances in the biennial 

performance report. This explanation 

would address factors that the State 

DOT could not have foreseen and were 

outside of their control when they 

established targets at the beginning of 

the performance period. If the 

explanation is accepted by FHWA, then 

the associated NHPP target(s) would be 

excluded from FHWA determination 

under § 490.109(e)(2). If the explanation 

is not accepted by FHWA, then the State 

DOT would be deemed to not have 

made significant progress for the target. 

Extenuating circumstances would 

include: 

• Natural or man-made disasters 

causing delay in NHPP project delivery, 

extenuating delay in data collection, 

and/or damage/loss of data system; 

• sudden discontinuation of Federal 

Government furnished data due to 

natural and man-made disasters or lack 

of funding; and/or 

• new law or regulation directing 

State DOTs to change metric and/or 

measure calculation. 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), in 

§ 490.109(f), FHWA proposes that if 

FHWA determines that a State DOT has 

not made significant progress for an 

NHPP targets in two consecutive FHWA 

determinations, then the State DOT 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 357 

would include in its next Biennial 

Performance Report a description of the 

actions the State DOT will undertake to 

achieve all targets in same measure 

group. The FHWA proposed the 

measure groups as follow: 

• Interstate System pavement 

condition—both proposed measures 

Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition in 

§ 490.307(a)(1) and Percentage of 

pavements of the Interstate System in 

Poor condition in § 490.307(a)(2); 

• Non-Interstate NHS pavement 

condition—both proposed measures 

Percentage of pavements of the nonInterstate NHS in Good condition in 

§ 490.307(a)(3) and Percentage of 

pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in 

Good condition in § 490.307(a)(4); 

• NHS bridge condition—both 

measures Percentage of NHS bridges in 

Good condition in § 490.407(c)(1) and 

Percentage of NHS bridges in Poor 

condition in § 490.407(c)(2); 

As a general example of this proposed 

approach, when a State DOT has not 

made significant progress for any one of 

the targets for Interstate System 

pavement condition measures, then that 

State DOT would include in its next 

Biennial Performance Report a 

description of the actions the State DOT 

will undertake to achieve targets for all 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures. 

Tables 2 and 3 illustrate this proposed 

determination method. Table 2 includes 

the significant progress determination 

results in 2019 for the midpoint 1st 

performance period and the significant 

progress determination in 2021 for the 

end of the 1st performance period. Table 

3 includes the significant progress 

determination results in 2021 for the 

end of the 1st performance period 

(repeat from Table 2) and the significant 

progress determination in 2023 for the 

midpoint 2nd performance period. In 

this example, a State DOT has 

established statewide targets, as 

required, for 2 measures: Percentage of 

pavements in Good Condition on the 

Interstate System and Percentage of 

pavements in Poor Condition on the 

Interstate System. 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.010</GPH>

Table 2 Example of Significant Progress Determinations in 2019 and 2021 

The Percentage of 

pavements in Good 

Condition on 40.0% 

Interstate Systemstatewide 

The Percentage of 

pavements in Poor 

Condition on 7.0% 

Interstate Systemstatewide 

Percentage of 

pavements in Good 

Condition on non- 35.0% 

Interstate NHSstatewide 

Percentage of 

pavements in Poor 

Condition on non- 3.8% 

Interstate NHSstatewide 

Percentage of NHS 

bridges in Good 

Condition- 35.0% 

statewide 

Significant Progr~~ 

.Determination for the 

fllidpoint .1st Performan~ 

Period in 2019 

39.5% 39.2% No 

Yes by 

actual 

5.9% 6.2% better 

than the 

baseline 

Yes by 

achieving 

34.4% 34.4% the 2-

year 

target 

Yes by 

achieving 

2.9% 2.9% the 2-

year 

target 

Yes by 

achieving 

34.5% 34.9% the 2-

year 

target 

Significant Progtess 

~etetmination forthe .~nd 

of the 1st Petformancee. 

38.5% 37.7% No 

Yes by 

actual 

5.2% 6.0% better 

than the 

baseline 

Yes by 

achieving 

33.3% 33.4% the 4-

year 

target 

Yes by 

achieving 

2.3% 2.2% the 4-

year 

target 

34.0% 33.4% No 

Interstate 

System 

pavement 

condition 

NonInterstate 

NHS 

pavement 

condition 

NHS Bridge 

condition 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 359 

In Table 2 above, the State DOT has 

not made significant progress towards 

the target for the Percentage of 

pavements in Good Condition on the 

Interstate System measure in two 

consecutive FHWA determinations. So 

the State DOT would include in its next 

Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report in 

2022) a description of the actions the 

State DOT will undertake to achieve for 

both measures—the Percentage of 

pavements in Good Condition on 

Interstate System and the Percentage of 

pavements in Poor Condition on 

Interstate System measures. 

The FHWA believes that any one of 

the targets could impact other targets in 

the same measure group and FHWA also 

believes that the State DOT’s 

descriptions of the actions for all targets 

in a same measure group would be more 

logical and sensible in managing 

performance of relevant network (e.g. 

the entire Interstate System) rather than 

isolated description on a subset of 

network (e.g. pavements in Good 

Condition on Interstate System). So, 

FHWA proposes that a State DOT would 

provide a description of the actions the 

State DOT will undertake to achieve all 

targets in the same measure group. 

As indicated in the previous 

discussion in § 490.109, FHWA would 

make the significant progress 

determination each time the State DOT 

submits its State DOT Mid Performance 

Period Progress Report and its State 

DOT Full Performance Period Progress 

Report. The FHWA proposes that the 

significant progress determination 

would be done on an ongoing/rolling 

basis and would not restart at the 

beginning of each performance period. 

So in this example, 2 consecutive 

reporting would also be the significant 

progress determination results in 2021 

for the end of the 1st performance 

period (repeat from Table 2) and the 

significant progress determination in 

2023 for the midpoint 2nd performance 

period. Note 4-year condition/

performance of the 1st performance 

period is the baseline condition/

performance of the 2nd performance 

period. 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.011</GPH>
360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.012</GPH>

Table 3 Example of Significant Progress Determinations in 2021 and 2023 

The Percentage of 

pavements in Good 

Condition on 40.0% 

Interstate Systemstatewide 

The Percentage of 

pavements in Poor 

Condition on 7.0% 

Interstate Systemstatewide 

Percentage of 

pavements in Good 

Condition on non- 35.0% 

Interstate NHSstatewide 

Percentage of 

pavements in Poor 

Condition on non- 3.8% 

Interstate NHSstatewide 

Percentage of NHS 

bridges in Good 35.0% Conditionstatewide 

Signifi~ant Progress 

Determination for the 

endofthe.·lst .. 

38.5% 37.7% No 

Yes by 

actual 

5.2% 6.0% better 

than the 

baseline 

Yes by 

achieving 

33.3% 33.4% the 4-

year 

target 

Yes by 

achieving 

2.3% 2.2% the 4-

year 

target 

34.0% 33.4% No 

59 Repeat from Table 2 

Yes by 

achieving 

37.7% 39.5% 39.9% the 2-

year Interstate 

target System 

Yes by pavement 

achieving condition 

6.0% 5.6% 5.6% the 2-

year 

target 

Yes by 

actual 

33.4% 32.4% 32.5% better Nonthan the Interstate 

baseline NHS Yes by 

achieving pavement 

2.2% 2.1% 2.0% the 2- condition 

year 

target 

NHS 

33.4% 33.0% 32.7% No Bridge 

condition 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 361 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–C 

In Table 3, the State DOT has not 

made significant progress towards the 

Percentage of NHS bridges in Good 

Condition measure in two consecutive 

FHWA determinations. So the State 

DOT would include in its next Biennial 

Performance Report (i.e. Full 

Performance Period Progress Report in 

2024) a description of the actions the 

State DOT will undertake to achieve 

statewide targets for both measures 

Percentage of NHS bridges in Good 

Condition and Percentage of NHS 

bridges in Poor Condition. 

Although State DOTs are required to 

include a description of the actions the 

State DOT will undertake to achieve 

targets in its next Biennial Performance 

Report to meet the requirement in 23 

U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and paragraph (f) of this 

section, State DOTs should not wait 

until next Biennial Performance Report 

in taking necessary actions. As 

discussed in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) and 

(b)(3)(ii)(E), all State DOTs are required 

to discuss the progress they have made 

toward the achievement of targets 

established for the NHPP measures in 

each of their Biennial Performance 

Report. Thus, FHWA expects State 

DOTs would routinely monitor leading 

indicators, such as program delivery 

status and measured data, to assess if 

they are on track to make significant 

progress for a State DOT’s NHPP targets 

and expects State DOTs to be aware of 

their progress prior to the time of each 

Biennial Performance Report. As 

discussed in § 490.109(c), if a State DOT 

anticipates it may not make significant 

progress, they are encouraged to work 

with FHWA and seek technical 

assistance during the performance 

period to identify the actions that can be 

taken in a timely manner to improve 

progress toward making significant 

progress for the targets reported in 

subsequent Biennial Performance 

Reports. Thus, in § 490.109(f)(6), FHWA 

proposes that the State DOT should, 

within 6 months of the significant 

progress determination and in a format 

that can be made available to FHWA, 

document the information specified in 

this section to ensure actions are being 

taken to improve progress. 

Discussion of § 490.111 Incorporation 

by Reference 

In § 490.111, FHWA proposes to 

incorporate by reference a number of 

items. First, FHWA proposes to 

incorporate the proposed HPMS Field 

Manual to codify the data requirements 

for measures, as discussed throughout 

Part 490, and to be consistent with 

HPMS reporting requirements. The 

proposed HPMS Field Manual includes 

detailed information on technical 

procedures to be used as reference by 

those collecting and reporting data for 

the proposed measures. The proposed 

HPMS Field Manual is included in the 

docket. 

The FHWA also proposes to 

incorporate by reference 10 AASHTO 

standards to codify the method and/or 

the device used to collect data for the 

metrics (i.e., IRI, Cracking_Percent, 

rutting, and faulting). These AASHTO 

Standards were developed and adopted 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.013</GPH>
362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

62AASHTO (2008). Comparative Performance 

Measurement: Pavement Smoothness, NCHRP 20– 

24(37B). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/

archive/NotesDocs/20-24(37)B_FR.pdf. 

63FHWA (2012). Improving FHWA’s Ability to 

Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study 

Report, FHWA–HIF–12–049. http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/

hif12049.pdf. 

64More information about the defined terms 

associated with pavement ‘‘cracking,’’ ‘‘faulting,’’ 

‘‘punchouts,’’ ‘‘rutting,’’ etc., can be found in the 

‘‘Distress Identification Manual’’ published by 

FHWA. See FHWA 2003, Publication No. FHWA– 

RD–03–031 ‘‘Distress Identification Manual for the 

Long-Term Pavement Performance Program.’’ 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/

infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/reports/03031/

03031.pdf. 

by the AASHTO member States as 

appropriate national standard practices 

for collecting and reporting pavement 

and other condition data. The 

incorporated standards are included in 

the ‘‘Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, 34th Edition 

and AASHTO Provisional Standards, 

2014 Edition,’’ which is available for 

purchase at: https://

bookstore.transportation.org/item_

details.aspx?ID=2223. The FHWA 

believes that the entities most affected 

by this proposed regulation, namely 

State DOTs and MPOs, already own a 

copy of the incorporated AASHTO 

standards. 

Lastly, FHWA proposes to incorporate 

by reference the ‘‘Recording and Coding 

Guide for the Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,’’ 

which contains all of the NBI Items 

listed in subpart D. This guide is 

intended for use by States, Federal 

agencies, Tribal governments and other 

bridge owners in recording and coding 

the data items that comprise the NBI. 

The Guide is available at no charge on 

the FHWA Web site at: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm, and 

is also included in the docket. 

A copy of all of the incorporated 

documents outlined above will be on 

file and available for inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration. These documents will 

also be available for viewing at the 

Department of Transportation Library. 

B. Section-by-Section Discussion for 

Subpart C: NHPP Measures for 

Assessing Pavement Condition 

Discussion of § 490.301 Purpose 

This section describes the general 

purpose of the proposed subpart: To 

implement certain portions of 23 U.S.C. 

150(c) that require FHWA to establish 

performance measures to assess the 

condition of pavement on the Interstate 

System, performance measures to assess 

the condition of pavement on the nonInterstate NHS, minimum levels for the 

condition of pavement on the Interstate 

System, pavement data elements that 

are necessary to collect and maintain 

standardized data to carry out a 

performance-based approach, and 

consider regional differences in 

establishing the minimum levels for 

pavement condition. 

Discussion of § 490.303 Applicability 

The FHWA proposes to specify 

pavement condition performance 

measures that would be applicable to all 

mainline Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS pavements covered 

under 23 U.S.C. 119 regardless of 

ownership or maintenance 

responsibility. Specifically excluded are 

ramps, shoulders, turn lanes, crossovers, 

rest areas, and non-normally traveled 

pavement surfaces that are not part of 

the roadway normally traveled by 

through traffic. 

Discussion of § 490.305 Definitions 

The FHWA proposes a set of 

definitions that are specific only to this 

subpart. The FHWA proposes to include 

definitions for three types of pavements: 

‘‘asphalt pavements,’’ ‘‘Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP),’’ 

and ‘‘Jointed Concrete Pavements,’’ 

because data requirements and metrics 

for the proposed measure are dependent 

on surface type of pavement. The 

FHWA recognizes some pavements are 

composite pavements that consist of 

multiple pavement types, such as an 

asphalt pavement overlay over an older 

jointed concrete pavement. The FHWA 

believes it is sufficient for the purpose 

of this rulemaking and for improved 

consistency to consider the pavement 

type of any composite pavement as the 

pavement type that exists in the surface 

of the structure (or the top-most layer). 

The need for consistent definitions 

was reinforced by a national study on 

pavement roughness 62 and a regional 

study on highway infrastructure 

health.63 These studies found that both 

measured roughness and distress data 

are not consistently collected and 

reported by State DOTs across the 

country. The FHWA is addressing this 

need by proposing definitions for 

cracking, faulting, IRI, punchout, and 

rutting.64

The FHWA proposes to define 

‘‘Cracking’’ as a metric that would be 

used for determining pavement 

condition and a definition for ‘‘Cracking 

Percent’’ that would be used to express 

the percentage of cracking exhibiting in 

a pavement surface. The FHWA 

proposes to define ‘‘Cracking Percent’’ 

separately for each type of pavement. 

The FHWA proposes to define 

‘‘Faulting’’ and ‘‘International 

Roughness Index’’ to avoid confusion 

with any other uses of these terms as 

these pavement conditions are broadly 

defined. The FHWA believes that these 

proposed definitions would provide 

greater consistency for characterizing 

pavement condition for the proposed 

measure. 

For purposes of this subpart, the 

FHWA proposes to define ‘‘pavement’’ 

as any hard surfaced travel lanes of any 

highway. While there are many 

definitions currently in practice, FHWA 

selected this proposed definition 

because it focuses on the surface of the 

pavement, which is what would 

actually be measured and evaluated to 

assess pavement condition. The FHWA 

proposes to include the definition of 

‘‘Pavement Surface Rating (PSR)’’ 

because PSR values were previously 

permitted to be submitted in the HPMS 

in lieu of IRI, if IRI values were not 

available or obtainable. Under this 

proposal, PSR could not be used in lieu 

of IRI to measure or rate NHS pavement 

condition. 

The FHWA proposes to include the 

definition of ‘‘punchout’’ as a pavement 

failure specific to CRCP condition that 

needs to be evaluated for the 

performance measures. 

The FHWA proposes to define 

‘‘rutting’’ because it is another pavement 

failure condition that needs to be 

evaluated for the performance measures. 

The FHWA proposes to include the 

definition of ‘‘sampling’’ because it is an 

approach to data collection that is 

referenced in this NPRM. The sampling 

of some pavement condition data that is 

currently permitted on non-Interstate 

NHS routes would be discussed in this 

subpart. 

Discussion of § 490.307 National 

Performance Management Measures for 

Assessing Pavement Condition 

The next several sections discuss the 

measures that are proposed to assess 

pavement condition. This first section 

introduces the proposed measures and 

the following sections discuss the 

metrics, data requirements, and 

processes for calculating the measures. 

Once the measures have been 

established by FHWA, they would be 

used by States and MPOs for the 

establishment of targets and in the 

determination of progress toward the 

achievement of targets for pavement 

condition. In addition, FHWA would 

use these measures to assess compliance 

with the minimum condition of 

Interstate System pavements as required 

in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 363 

65NCHRP (2009) Quality Management of 

Pavement Condition Data Collection, NCHRP 

Synthesis 401. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_401.pdf. 

66FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality 

Management of Pavement Condition Data 

Collection. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/

management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf. 

67AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20– 

24(82) ‘‘Improving Consistency in HPMS Pavement 

Data.’’ 

The establishment of a measure for 

pavement condition poses challenges 

because current State DOT measure 

definitions and data collection 

approaches vary across State DOTs and 

local agencies and there is limited 

availability of consistent data at a 

national level. A summary of the 

challenges associated with developing 

national measures as documented in 

national studies 65 66 is provided below: 

• Data items collected varies across 

agencies.—The data items the State 

DOTs collect and the frequency with 

which they are collected, although 

similar, vary across the agencies. For 

example, Colorado DOT collects 

cracking, rutting and IRI, but Florida 

DOT collects surface distress, faulting, 

rutting, and IRI. 

• Data collection protocols vary 

across agencies.—While FHWA, 

AASHTO, and the American Society for 

Testing and Materials have all issued 

standards for the terminology, 

definitions, and data collection 

techniques, a recent national study 

indicated that there is still variation in 

defining types of pavement failures and 

collection methods used by highway 

and local transportation agencies. In 

addition, while fully automated and 

semi-automated technologies have 

gained wide acceptance in pavement 

condition data collection, some State 

DOTs still use manual surveys 

(including walking and windshield 

surveys). 

• Data collection coverage varies 

across State DOTs and local agencies.— 

The extent of the pavement system that 

is monitored for condition assessment 

differs across State DOTs and local 

agencies where there is no consistency 

in the number of directions, the number 

of lanes, and the percentage of system 

length that are collected. Methods for 

determining the number and locations 

of samples vary among different State 

DOTs and the statistical significance of 

these sampling techniques is largely 

unknown. 

• Reporting intervals vary across 

State DOTs.—Pavement condition data 

is typically aggregated in pavement 

sections for reporting. The section 

lengths of pavement condition vary 

from 0.01 to 1 mile or more depending 

on State DOT. 

• Pavement condition metrics and 

measures vary across State DOTs.—The 

State DOTs evaluate the condition and 

anticipated performance of pavements 

differently. Not all State DOTs classify 

pavements as Good, Fair or Poor. The 

State DOTs that do classify pavements 

as Good, Fair, or Poor, each have unique 

definitions for these terms. 

• Data Quality Management practices 

vary among State DOTs from highly 

elaborate systems to none at all. 

Considering these challenges, FHWA 

proposes to establish the following as 

part of this rulemaking: (1) State DOTs 

and MPOs use a set of national 

measures that are based on broadly 

accepted metrics to assess pavement 

conditions; and (2) data elements and 

consistent data collection and 

management practices for pavement 

condition assessment that allow State 

DOTs and MPOs to continue with most 

of their current pavement management 

practices. 

In § 490.307, FHWA proposes 

performance measures to assess the 

pavement condition of the Interstate 

System and non-Interstate NHS. The 

performance measures for pavements on 

the Interstate System and the nonInterstate NHS would be the Percentages 

of lane-miles classified in Good and 

Poor Condition. The State DOTs and 

FHWA would classify each section of 

pavement as Good, Fair, or Poor, based 

on measurements of IRI, percentage of 

cracking, and either percentage of 

rutting or faulting in each pavement 

section. Pavement sections would be 

uniform in size, except as provided in 

§ 490.311(c)(1), and would be defined 

using inventory data items that establish 

the location, number of lanes, surface 

type, and whether a bridge exists in the 

section. These measurements would be 

rated for severity and combined into an 

overall rating for each section of 

pavement. The State DOTs would use 

overall ratings for sections contained in 

the appropriate highway system to 

establish targets and report progress 

toward the achievement of those targets. 

The FHWA believes that the inclusion 

of IRI in the measure is essential to 

capture the extent that pavement 

conditions are affecting the operation of 

the highway. Thus, if IRI is excessive, 

traffic would operate at slower speeds to 

avoid damage to vehicles, maintain 

safety, cause less discomfort to 

passengers, and avoid damage to cargo. 

Inclusion of Cracking_Percent, rutting 

and faulting in the measures captures 

the extent of pavement structural 

deterioration and liability for future 

maintenance and reconstruction. The 

State DOTs currently use similar 

measurements and data items in their 

Pavement Management Systems, but 

typically use different standards for data 

collection and different methods for 

guiding pavement decisions. The FHWA 

recognizes the importance of 

standardization of data collection and 

data management practices and 

identifies critical data collection 

practices and methods in § 490.309. 

Relationship between § 490.309 (Data 

Requirements), 490.311 (Calculation of 

Pavement Metrics), and 490.313 

(Calculation of Pavement Management 

Measures) 

The proposed approach to 

determining pavement measures 

includes data requirements, methods to 

determine pavement, and methods to 

calculate pavement condition. This 

proposed approach is presented in the 

next three sections as follows: 

• Data Requirements—§ 490.309 

outlines the data necessary to determine 

a set of metrics that would be reported 

to the HPMS and then used to calculate 

pavement measures. The type of data to 

be collected, the methods of data 

collection, and the extent and frequency 

of collection are all proposed in this 

section. 

• Pavement Metrics—§ 490.311 

describes a set of metrics that would be 

calculated from the data collected. The 

proposed pavement metrics would be 

calculated for sections of highway 

pavement and reported by the State 

DOT to the HPMS. 

• Pavement Measures—§ 490.313 

provides the method to calculate 

measures using the metrics reported in 

the HPMS. The State DOTs would use 

the measures to report the condition of 

Interstate System and non-Interstate 

NHS pavements and establish targets 

and report on progress. 

Discussion of § 490.309 Data 

Requirements 

Even before the passage of MAP–21, 

FHWA and stakeholders recognized the 

need for standardized data collection. 

The pavement community (i.e., FHWA, 

States, local agencies, private industry 

and academia) is continuing to conduct 

research to refine and standardize data 

collection, reporting and production. 

The following are provided as example 

of efforts that are underway, or have 

recently been completed, that support 

the national pavement performance 

measure: 

• Evaluate differences in State DOTs 

data sources and the HPMS data sources 

and provide recommended actions to 

improve any consistency issues.67

• Build on existing work to document 

the current approaches used by State 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

68AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20– 

24(37J) ‘‘Comparative Study on Pavement Structural 

Adequacy.’’ 

69FHWA (2013) HPMS Field Manual. http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/

fieldmanual/. 

70FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality 

Management of Pavement Condition Data 

Collection. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/

management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf. 

71FHWA (2012).Improving FHWA’s Ability to 

Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study 

Report, FHWA–HIF–12–049. http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/

hif12049.pdf. 

DOTs to rate overall pavement 

condition and to drive pavement 

investment decisionmaking.68 The 

outcome of this report would 

recommend approaches that State DOTs 

can use to develop a national pavement 

performance measure that has the least 

impact on current practices to rate 

condition. 

The FHWA is proposing in § 490.309 

the data requirements needed to 

calculate the proposed pavement 

performance measures, including the 

incorporation by reference of the FHWA 

HPMS Field Manual 69 (‘‘HPMS Field 

Manual’’) by reference. These 

requirements are necessary in order to 

calculate the pavement conditions 

measures discussed in § 490.313. The 

existing HPMS was selected as the 

reporting mechanism for this proposed 

subpart because State DOTs are familiar 

with this data source and its content. In 

addition, the current HPMS reporting 

frequency closely aligns with this 

proposal. The following section 

discusses the relevant requirements of 

the Field Manual. Note that definitions 

and language from the HPMS Field 

Manual have been used in the subpart 

to avoid confusion. 

In § 490.309(a), FHWA proposes that 

State DOTs and other local agencies 

collect data in accordance with the 

HPMS Field Manual to report four 

condition metrics: IRI, rutting, faulting, 

and Cracking_Percent. Nearly all State 

DOTs 70 currently collect these metrics 

using similar data collection processes 

that are based on existing AASHTO 

Standards and required for HPMS 

submittals. In addition to the four 

condition metrics, FHWA proposes that 

State DOTs provide three HPMS 

inventory data elements that define the 

pavement sections used to calculate the 

proposed pavement condition. These 

three inventory data elements include: 

Through Lanes, Surface Type, and 

Structure Type. The data elements 

identified in this proposed subpart are 

considered necessary to collect and 

maintain standardized data to carry out 

a performance-based approach as 

required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iv). 

In § 490.309(b), FHWA proposes data 

requirements that are necessary to 

calculate the four proposed metrics for 

pavements on the Interstate System and 

on the non-Interstate NHS. The 

proposed requirements in this section 

define what data would be required to 

be collected, how extensive the data 

collection would be, and how often the 

data would need to be collected. To 

ensure data consistency between the 

data collection cycles, FHWA proposes 

that data would be collected in the 

rightmost lane of travel, or in one 

consistent lane if the rightmost lane is 

not accessible. Additional data 

collection requirements specified in this 

section would be more stringent than 

current HPMS requirements in the 

following areas: 

1. State DOTs would be required to 

collect data on the full extent of 

Interstate System to calculate the four 

metrics and on the full extent of the 

NHS to identify the three data elements. 

2. Beginning in 2018, State DOTs 

would be required to collect data on the 

full extent of non-Interstate NHS to 

calculate the 4 metrics. 

3. States DOTs would be required to 

collect data in both directions of travel 

of the Interstate System to calculate the 

four metrics and identify three data 

elements. 

4. States DOTs would be required to 

collect data on the full Interstate System 

annually and calculate the four metrics. 

5. States DOTs would be required to 

collect data on the non-Interstate NHS 

biennially after the transition period 

ending December 31, 2017. 

The FHWA proposes the specific data 

collection requirements for Interstate 

System pavements in § 490.309(b)(1) 

and for non-Interstate NHS pavements 

in § 490.309(b)(2). The FHWA 

recognizes that although these proposed 

data collection requirements would be 

similar to current HPMS data collection 

practices, they would, in some aspects, 

increase the burden on State DOTs to 

assess pavement condition for national 

reporting. The FHWA feels that this 

increased level of effort is necessary to 

improve consistency and to ensure more 

accurate and timely reporting of 

national pavement conditions. 

Currently, State DOTs typically manage 

and maintain each direction of the 

Interstate System as separate roadways 

and only report in one direction. The 

FHWA feels that reporting the 

measurement in both directions is 

essential to this process.71

As part of HPMS submittal, State 

DOTs have been required to collect and 

report IRI data on the full length of the 

NHS annually. In addition, as of 2010, 

State DOTs have been required to 

collect and report rutting, Cracking_

Percent, and faulting conditions using a 

sampling approach for all Federal-aid 

eligible roadway pavements. Since 

2010, FHWA’s review of HPMS data 

submittals has exposed many 

inconsistencies in State DOT submittals. 

For the Interstate System several State 

DOTs have not submitted any Cracking_

Percent, faulting or rutting data; others 

have submitted data only for a limited 

portion of the roadway network; and 

many anomalies have been found in the 

data that have raised questions 

regarding the accuracy of the data. 

Inconsistencies in State DOT submittals 

are not unexpected. While sampling can 

be a valid process for handling large 

quantities of data, it is only 

representative of actual pavement 

conditions when it follows a known 

distribution, such as a normal 

distribution and the data is collected 

randomly. Neither of these conditions 

exist for pavements on the NHS. 

Collecting data on a truly random basis 

is not practical or desirable for States to 

use for managing pavement programs. 

Furthermore, the States are adopting 

automated devices for data collection 

for reasons of objectivity and safety for 

personnel. Although these devices are 

not a perfect replacement for manual 

surveys, they are rapidly developing 

and are making the need for sampling 

pavement data obsolete. For these 

reasons, FHWA is proposing to prohibit 

the practice of expanding samples to 

populate the HPMS with data for the 

full extent of the system. The FHWA 

wants data collected for the full extent 

of both the Interstate System and the 

NHS. 

The FHWA recognizes the increased 

burden imposed on State DOTs for full 

extent data collection for mainline 

highways on the non-Interstate NHS. In 

consideration of this fact, FHWA is 

proposing in § 490.309(b)(2)(i)(E) to 

reduce the current frequency of 

reporting for IRI on the non-Interstate 

NHS from annual reports to biennial 

reporting. In addition, FHWA proposes 

in § 490.309(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) a phasedin approach to comply with data 

collection requirements of the nonInterstate NHS. This approach allows 

State DOTs to phase in these new data 

collection requirement while continuing 

their existing HPMS reporting practices 

through the data collection cycle ending 

on December 31, 2017 (the 2nd Data 

Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below). By 

December 31, 2019, all State DOTs 

would have a completed data collection 

cycle (the 3rd Data Collection Cycle in 

Figure 7 below) conforming to the new 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 365 

requirements. In addition to reducing 

the immediate burden to State DOTs, 

FHWA proposes this transition period 

so that it will align with the State DOT 

biennial performance reporting 

requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). As 

proposed in §§ 490.105 and 490.107 on 

State DOT target establishment and 

reporting requirements, State DOTs are 

required to establish targets in Calendar 

Year 2016 for a performance period 

ending in December 31, 2019. Thus, the 

data collected during the data collection 

cycle ending on December 31, 2019 (the 

3rd Data Collection Cycle in Figure 7 

below), would be used to: (1) Assess 

target achievement for the targets 

established in 2016; and (2) establish a 

baseline for new targets in 2020 for the 

performance period ending on 

December 31, 2023. 

In the case of the non-Interstate NHS, 

a State DOT has a biennial data 

collection cycle. In the first two data 

cycles, a State DOT would collect data 

for the full extent of the system to allow 

for reporting of the IRI metric for the 

non-Interstate NHS. However, data 

collected to support the faulting, rutting, 

and Cracking_Percent would be 

required only in sample panels of the 

system to meet HPMS reporting 

requirements and would not be required 

to calculate the pavement condition 

measure proposed in this rulemaking. 

Beginning with the third data collection 

cycle (the latest data collection cycle 

that ends on December 31, 2019; see 

Figure 7), and continuing with 

subsequent cycles, State DOTs would be 

required to collect data for the full 

extent of the system to report the IRI, 

faulting, rutting and Cracking_Percent 

metrics. 

To ensure the collection of data in a 

consistent manner to provide for 

credible national performance/condition 

reporting, FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.309(b)(3) the use of the AASHTO 

data collection standards for supporting 

the proposed measure. The section 

provides specific data collection 

standards, where appropriate, and 

incorporates the AASHTO standards by 

reference. The AASHTO standards are 

proposed because they are considered as 

best practices, specifically by State 

DOTs, and are recognized worldwide. A 

summary of proposed data collection 

standards is presented in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DATA COLLECTION STANDARDS

Data metric Proposed protocol 

IRI for all Pavement Types .. • IRI collection device in accordance with AASHTO Standard M328–14. 

• Collection of IRI data in accordance with AASHTO Standard R57–14. 

Cracking_Percent for all 

Pavement Types (Except 

CRCP).

• Either manual cracking data collection and analysis in accordance with AASHTO Standard R55–10 (2013) or 

Automated Cracking Data Collection and Analysis in accordance with AASHTO Standard PP67–14 and 

AASHTO Standard PP68–14. 

Cracking_Percent for CRCP • Percentage of pavement surface with longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts, spalling or other visible defects 

(as described in the HPMS field manual). 

• Transverse cracking in CRCP is not included in the cracking computation. 

Rutting for Asphalt Pavements.• Either the 5-Point Collection of Rutting Data method in accordance with AASHTO Standard R48–10 (2003) or 

the Automated Transverse Profile Data method in accordance with AASHTO Standard PP69–14 and AASHTO 

Standard PP70–14. 

Faulting for Jointed PCCP ... • Measured pavement profiles using AASHTO Standard R36–13. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.014</GPH>
366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

72FHWA 2013, Practical Guide for Quality 

Management of Pavement Condition Data 

Collection. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/

management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf. 

In § 490.309(c), FHWA proposes the 

data collection requirements to identify 

the three data elements that State DOTs 

would be required to use to calculate 

the performance measures. These are 

essentially highway inventory items that 

are already reported by State DOTs to 

the HPMS. These data elements define 

the type of pavement, and whether or 

not there is a bridge at that location. 

Consistent with all of the pavement 

conditions and measures on the NHS, 

FHWA proposes that these elements be 

measured and not estimated from 

samples. This proposed approach would 

help achieve standardized data 

collection at a national level. 

Discussion of § 490.311 Calculation of 

Pavement Metrics 

In § 490.311, FHWA proposes the 

method to calculate and report the four 

pavement metrics and three inventory 

data elements discussed in § 490.309(a) 

from the data collected. The FHWA is 

proposing specific methodologies for 

calculating the metric, where 

appropriate, and incorporates the HPMS 

Field Manual by reference for any areas 

not specifically covered. The metric and 

inventory data element reporting 

requirements specified in this section 

would be more stringent than current 

HPMS requirements in the following 

areas: 

1. The States DOTs would be required 

to report the four metrics and three 

inventory data elements in segments of 

0.1 mile. 

2. The States DOTs would be required 

to report the four metrics and three 

inventory data elements biennially for 

the non-Interstate NHS after the 

transition period ending December 31, 

2019. 

3. The State DOTs would be required 

to report the four metrics and three 

inventory data elements to the HPMS by 

April 15 each year for Interstate System 

pavements. 

The FHWA is proposing in 

§ 490.311(b) that State DOTs calculate 

the IRI metric from profile data in 

accordance with AASHTO Standard 

R43–13. The metric would be reported 

for all pavements as the average value 

in inches per mile, rounded to the 

nearest whole number, for each section. 

This method has been widely adopted 

by State DOTs for determining the IRI 

metric.72 In addition, FHWA would not 

permit IRI to be estimated from a PSR 

or other observation-based methods. 

Because of differences in the 

engineering properties, the 

Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting 

metrics are calculated differently for 

each type of pavement. The FHWA 

proposes in § 490.311(b)(2) that for 

asphalt sections, the Cracking_Percent 

metric would be computed as the 

percentage of the total area, to the 

nearest whole percent, that are 

exhibiting cracking, and the rutting 

metric would be computed as the 

average depth of rutting, to the nearest 

0.05 inch, for the section. The FHWA 

proposes in § 490.311(b)(3) that for 

CRCP, the Cracking_Percent metric 

would be computed as the percentage of 

the area, to the nearest whole percent, 

of the full section exhibiting 

longitudinal cracking, punchouts, 

spalling, or other visible defects. In 

addition, FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.311(b)(3) that transverse cracking 

not be considered in the computation 

for the Cracking_Percent metrics for 

CRCP because transverse cracking is not 

considered a pavement failure indicator 

for CRCP. The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.311(b)(4) that for jointed concrete 

pavement, the Cracking_Percent metric 

would be computed as the percentage of 

slabs, to the nearest whole percent, 

within the section that exhibit cracking. 

The FHWA proposes that partial slabs 

should contribute to the section that 

contains the majority of the slab length. 

In addition, FHWA proposes that the 

faulting metric would be computed as 

the average height, to the nearest 0.05 

inch, of faulting between pavement 

slabs for the section. 

The type and extent of cracking used 

for the Cracking_Percent metric varies 

by pavement type. For asphalt pavement 

the Cracking_Percent metric considers 

all cracking present in the section area, 

for jointed concrete pavements the 

Cracking_Percent metric considers any 

crack present in a slab within the 

section, and for CRCP the 

Cracking_Percent metric considers only 

longitudinal cracking in the section area 

(plus the additional non-cracking 

related items discussed in 

§ 490.311(b)(3)). The metric calculations 

of Cracking_Percent for different 

pavements are proposed to align with 

existing HPMS practices and avoid the 

need for major changes in measurement 

and calculation practices by State DOTs. 

In § 490.311(c)(1), FHWA proposes all 

pavement metrics and data inventory 

elements be reported in uniform 0.1- 

mile sections. Shorter sections may be 

used at the beginning of a route, end of 

a route, or at locations where a section 

length of 0.1 mile is not achievable. The 

FHWA feels that a consistent reporting 

interval reduces discrepancies in 

calculating the percentages of system 

sections classified in Good, Fair, or Poor 

Condition that are associated with 

varied section lengths. In Figure 8, a 1⁄2- 

mile road measured at both the 0.1-mile 

interval and at 0.5-mile section shows 

the following hypothetical results. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 367 

73AASHTO (2013). SCOPM Task Force Findings 

on MAP–21 Performance Measure Target-Setting. 

AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance 

Management. http://scopm.transportation.org/

Documents/SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20

Findings%20on%20Performance%20Measure%20

Target-Setting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).

pdf. 

74 ‘‘Potential Safety Cost-Effectiveness of Treating 

Rutted Pavements’’ by Start, M R,Kim, J,Berg, W D; 

Transportation Research Record, Issue Number: 

1629, Publisher: Transportation Research 

Board,ISSN: 0361–1981. 

75The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for 

New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures’’, 

NCHRP 1–37A, 2004, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

Continued 

For the 0.1-mile sections shown in 

Figure 8(a), 40 percent of the road is 

classified Good, 20 percent of the road 

is classified Fair, and 40 percent of the 

road is classified Poor when pavement 

conditions are measured. However, 

when the same road pavement 

conditions are measured at a 0.5-mile 

interval as shown in Figure 8(b), the 

entire roadway (100 percent) may be 

summarized (i.e., averaged) to be Fair, 

which presents a very different account 

of pavement condition for this length of 

roadway as compared to an approach 

that uses a shorter section length to 

report condition. This 0.1 mile uniform 

section length, which is proposed to be 

used for the Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS, is supported by a 

recommendation provided by 

stakeholders.73 The FHWA requests 

comments on whether a 0.1 mile 

uniform section length is appropriate for 

both the Interstate System and nonInterstate NHS. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.311(c)(2) that State DOTs provide 

a single value for each of the four 

metrics and three data elements for each 

1⁄10 mile segment reported to the HPMS 

per year. The FHWA feels that using 

uniform section lengths to report to the 

HPMS will improve consistency. 

Considering this, FHWA proposes that 

State DOTs would not be allowed to 

break a 1⁄10 mile section into multiple 

shorter sections unless the 1⁄10 section is 

truncated at the termini of a roadway. A 

State DOT would also not be allowed to 

submit multiple entries for the four 

metrics and three data elements for the 

same 1⁄10 mile section length. This 

redundant reporting would be 

considered invalid data and would be 

subject to the requirement specified in 

§ 490.313. 

Section 490.311(c)(3) proposes that 

State DOTs would report for each 

section containing any of the four 

metrics or three inventory data elements 

a time and location reference. The 

HPMS includes a standard location 

referencing framework that would be 

required under this proposal, which 

includes the State_Code, Route_ID, 

Begin_Point, and End_Point. The date 

for which the data represents for each 

section would be reported as year in the 

HPMS Year_Record field for each of 

sections containing any of the four 

metrics or three inventory data 

elements. In addition, the Value_Date 

field would be reported as the month 

and year of data collection for each of 

the sections containing any of the four 

metrics. This data information is needed 

to associate the reported condition 

metric to the performance year. 

Section 490.311(c)(4) provides that 

State DOTs report the four metrics and 

three inventory data elements for the 

Interstate System to the HPMS no later 

than April 15 of each calendar year. The 

information reported to the HPMS 

would be calculated from data collected 

from roadway sections in the prior 

calendar year. For example, the data 

collected from January 1, 2016, through 

December 31, 2016, would be used to 

calculate the four metrics and three 

inventory data elements that would be 

reported to the HPMS no later than 

April 15, 2017. Additionally, FHWA is 

proposing in § 490.311(c)(5) that State 

DOTs report the four metrics and three 

inventory data elements for the nonInterstate NHS to the HPMS no later 

than June 15 of each calendar year, the 

current due date to report to the HPMS. 

Discussion of § 490.313 Calculation of 

Performance Management Measures 

In § 490.313, FHWA proposes the 

method for calculating the pavement 

measures using the pavement metrics 

and data elements. In § 490.313(a), 

FHWA proposes how the pavement 

measures would be used by FHWA, 

State DOTs, and MPOs. 

In § 490.313(b), FHWA proposes the 

method to calculate condition ratings 

that would use a Good, Fair, and Poor 

rating approach for each of the four 

pavement metrics discussed in 

§ 490.311. This approach would use 

thresholds that would be applied to 

each of the four pavement metrics to 

determine the condition rating of Good, 

Fair, or Poor. The proposed thresholds 

are based on documented research. As 

an example, the proposed pavement 

rutting thresholds have been correlated 

to threshold levels that minimize the 

risk of vehicle hydroplaning.74

The FHWA proposes in § 490.313(b), 

the criteria to determine Good, Fair and 

Poor pavement condition ratings using 

each metric. These proposed criteria are 

based on the levels used by FHWA to 

report ride quality conditions for the IRI 

metric and the default design criteria 

thresholds established for the 

Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design 

Guide.75 The proposed criteria to 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.015</GPH>
368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_

toc.pdf. 

76FHWA, Table HM–47 in 2011 Highway 

Statistic. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

policyinformation/statistics/2011/hm47.cfm. 

determine Good, Fair, and Poor ratings 

are summarized in Table 5. The FHWA 

encourages comments on the 

appropriateness of these proposed 

criteria and any alternative levels that 

would be appropriate for network level 

condition assessment. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING THRESHOLDS

Surface type Metric Metric range Rating 

All pavements ........................................... IRI ............................................................ <95 ........................................................... Good. 

95–170: Areas with a population less 

than 1,000,000.

Fair. 

95–220: Urbanized areas with a population of at least 1,000,000.

>170: Areas with a population less than 

1,000,000.

Poor. 

>220: Urbanized areas with a population 

of at least 1,000,000.

Asphalt Pavement and Jointed Concrete 

Pavement.

Cracking_Percent ..................................... <5% ..........................................................

5–10% ......................................................

>10% ........................................................

Good. 

Fair. 

Poor. 

Asphalt Pavement .................................... Rutting ...................................................... <0.20 ........................................................

0.20–0.40 .................................................

>0.40 ........................................................

Good. 

Fair. 

Poor. 

Jointed Concrete Pavement ..................... Faulting .................................................... <0.05 ........................................................

0.05–0.15 .................................................

>0.15 ........................................................

Good. 

Fair. 

Poor. 

CRCP ....................................................... Cracking_Percent ..................................... <5% ..........................................................

5–10% ......................................................

>10% ........................................................

Good. 

Fair. 

Poor. 

Overall pavement condition is 

derived from the policies that State 

DOTs use for initiating construction 

activities for maintenance and/or safety 

repairs. State DOTs advise that IRI 

conditions are more difficult to preserve 

in urbanized areas than in nonurbanized areas. In consideration of this 

and because speeds are typically slower 

in urbanized areas, FHWA is proposing 

different thresholds for Fair and Poor 

IRI for large urbanized areas. In 

particular, FHWA proposes that the 

criteria to classify Poor condition be 

increased to an IRI of 220 in urbanized 

areas with a population over 1 million. 

The proposed IRI threshold of 170 is 

commonly used by State DOTs in nonurbanized areas. The proposed IRI 

threshold of 220 for urbanized areas 

with a population over 1 million is 

based on the upper end of IRI value 

distributions derived from the data 

submitted by State DOTs.76

Traffic levels were not included in the 

computation of pavement conditions 

except as implied by location as either 

urbanized or non-urbanized areas. 

Although traffic is an important 

consideration for the design of 

pavements, it is not considered a 

measure of the existing pavement 

condition. For this reason, the proposed 

rating system described in paragraphs 

(b) through (e) was designed without 

weightings or other prioritization 

related to anything other than the 

physical characteristics of the pavement 

structure. The FHWA is seeking 

stakeholders’ comment on the IRI 

threshold values. Because of safety and 

pavement structural implications, 

Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting 

are the same for all population areas. 

The FHWA proposes that condition 

ratings would be determined for each 

section of mainline highway. 

The FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.313(b)(4) how missing or invalid 

data would be addressed. The FHWA 

would determine, on the dates specified 

in 490.109(d)(1) and 490.109(d)(2), for 

the Interstate System and non-Interstate 

NHS, respectively, any mainline 

mileage that is incomplete due to any of 

the following scenarios: 

• Sections are missing, resulting in 

gaps in the mileage to be reported; or 

• sections are reported that do not 

contain all the data required in 

§ 490.311(c) or contain invalid data. 

The FHWA is proposing to address 

incomplete mainline mileage by: 

• Rating the mainline mileage as 

being in Poor condition for the 

corresponding metric where the mileage 

is considered incomplete due to missing 

or invalid sections for any of the four 

metrics; or 

• rating the mainline mileage as being 

in overall Poor condition where the 

mileage is considered incomplete due to 

missing or invalid sections for any of 

the three inventory data elements. 

The FHWA believes that 

completeness of data is essential to 

reliable and defensible reporting of 

pavement condition. The HPMS data 

needed to calculate the proposed 

pavement condition measure is, in some 

cases, incomplete. In 2012, 12 State 

DOTs were missing data from samples 

that represented at least 50 percent of 

their Interstate System and 3 State DOTs 

were not able to provide any samples 

with complete data for their portion of 

the Interstate System. In aggregate, 27 

percent of the full Interstate System lane 

mileage was represented by samples 

with missing HPMS data in 2012. 

Approximately 11 percent of the 

Interstate System would be rated in Poor 

condition if the proposed approach to 

addressing missing data was applied to 

the 2012 HPMS data. In contrast, only 

approximately 2 percent of the Interstate 

System would be rated in Poor 

condition if the missing 27 percent of 

data were excluded from the estimated 

calculation. This does not account for 

invalid data. The FHWA believes that it 

is critically important to use the entire 

network system (Interstate System and 

non-Interstate NHS) when assessing 

pavement conditions. The FHWA 

encourages comments on alternative 

methods for addressing missing or 

invalid data that would provide for an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 369 

accurate assessment of network level 

conditions. 

The FHWA proposes in § 490.313(c) 

and (d) that an Overall Condition Rating 

be determined based on the individual 

condition ratings for the metrics as 

illustrated in Figure 9. 

For an asphalt or jointed concrete 

pavement section to be classified in 

overall Good condition, all three criteria 

would have to be met. If a pavement 

section has two or more Poor criteria, it 

would be classified as Poor. For 

example, a section exceeding the criteria 

for IRI but not meeting the criteria for 

Cracking_Percent and the criteria for 

rutting would be classified in overall 

Poor condition because the rutting is a 

safety hazard and the cracking indicates 

that the section is structurally failing. 

Because of the distinct engineering 

properties of CRCP, there are only two 

criteria for determining the overall 

pavement condition, IRI and 

Cracking_Percent. For a CRCP section, 

both the IRI and Cracking_Percent 

criteria would need to be rated Good in 

order for a section to be classified in 

overall Good condition. Conversely, for 

a CRCP section, a condition rating of 

Poor means that both the IRI and 

Cracking_Percent criteria are rated as 

Poor. 

As outlined above, the FHWA is 

proposing an approach to determining 

pavement condition that requires at 

least 2 metrics to be exhibiting a Poor 

level of condition in order for the 

overall condition of a pavement section 

to be considered Poor. This approach 

recognizes the predominant condition 

represented by the metrics as the driver 

of the overall pavement condition. An 

alternative approach could consider the 

lowest rated metric as the indicator 

driving the overall condition of the 

pavement section, essentially only 

requiring 1 metric to be in Poor 

condition in order for the pavement 

section to be rated Poor overall. The 

FHWA elected to use a predominant 

approach as this concept is typical of 

the approach used by many State DOTs 

today to evaluate pavement condition. 

In addition, FHWA wanted to propose 

a condition assessment method that 

minimizes the potential for any single 

metric, such as ride quality, to dominate 

the condition. Further, FHWA believes 

that a predominant approach more 

accurately recognizes that pavement 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.016</GPH>
370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

77FHWA Highway Statistics 2011, Table VM–1, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/

statistics/2011/vm1.cfm 

78The FHWA did consider the establishment of 

different minimum condition thresholds for 

different geographic regions and felt that separate 

thresholds for these areas were not necessary. 

condition is impacted by multiple 

failure criteria. For example, a pavement 

that is exhibiting both Poor cracking and 

Poor rutting is more indicative of a 

structural problem as compared to a 

pavement that is only exhibiting Poor 

cracking. 

In § 490.313(e), FHWA proposes that 

the Overall condition for all pavement 

types on the non-Interstate NHS be 

solely based on IRI, until the collection 

cycle ending December 31, 2019. 

For the purpose of establishing targets 

and reporting of condition, FHWA 

proposes in § 490.313(f) that State DOTs 

and MPOs report system-level condition 

measure computed to the one tenth of 

a percent as Good and Poor percentages 

of lane-miles of Interstate System and 

non-Interstate NHS. The Percentages of 

lane-miles in Good (or Poor) condition 

is calculated from the total of the 

lengths of the sections in Good (or Poor) 

condition, the number of mainline lanes 

in each section, and the total length of 

all sections. Bridges would be excluded 

by excluding any samples that have a 

Structure Type of 1 prior to computing 

all pavement condition measures. State 

DOTs and MPOs would do separate 

calculations for the Interstate System 

and non-Interstate NHS measures. These 

measures would be used for establishing 

targets and reporting the condition of 

pavements in the biennial performance 

report. 

Discussion of § 490.315 Establishment 

of Minimum Level for Condition of 

Pavements on the Interstate System 

Selection of Minimum Condition Levels 

for the Interstate System 

The FHWA is required to establish 

minimum levels for the condition of 

pavement on the Interstate System for 

carrying out 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). (23 

U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii)) The Interstate 

System, which includes approximately 

48,000 miles of access-controlled 

highways, is considered one of the most 

important infrastructure assets in the 

world.77 The FHWA proposes a 

minimum condition level that would 

minimize impacts to this System: State 

DOTs maintain no more than 5.0 

percent of their pavements on the 

Interstate System in Poor condition.78 In 

selecting this level, the FHWA 

evaluated the costs and impacts to State 

DOTs and highway users as well as the 

estimated ability for State DOTs to 

comply. 

Poor, as defined in this proposal, 

represents a level of condition that 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 371 

79Washington State DOT Gray Notebook http://

www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/

SI_pavement.htm Kansas DOT. KDOT Long Range 

Transportation Plan, Section 2.2 http://

www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LRTP2008/

pdf/KS_LRTPFinal.Chapter_2.pdf Texas DOT. 

TxDOT Statewide Long Range Transportation 

Plan—2035 Final Report, Section 2.6 http://

ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/

report/slrtp_final_ch2.pdf 

80Pavement Score Synthesis, TXDOT Study, 

January, 2009, NCHRP Report 522, and NCHRP 

Report 551 

81Estimate based on HPMS data provided by 31 

State DOTs and excludes Interstate System mileage 

within these States that is represented by samples 

with missing data. These State DOTs were able to 

submit complete data (needed to calculate the 

proposed pavement condition measure) for samples 

that represented at least 80 percent of their 

Interstate System lane-miles. 

would adversely impact system 

performance and the ability to 

effectively manage network level 

conditions to meet user needs. There are 

several costs and other impacts 

associated with the existence of Poor 

condition pavements, including 

increased repair costs, increased VOCs, 

costs associated with work zones, and 

impacts to the environment, local 

communities and businesses. 

Considering these impacts, FHWA 

would like to minimize the existence of 

Poor condition pavements on the 

Interstate System but also allow States 

flexibility to manage their pavements 

system-wide. The FHWA believes that it 

is impractical to set an expectation to 

remove all Poor condition pavements 

from the Interstate System as it could 

result in ineffective pavement 

management practices by forcing State 

DOTs to chase small percentages of Poor 

pavements at the risk of ignoring efforts 

to preserve pavements in Good and Fair 

conditions. Understanding this 

challenge, FHWA believes that a 

minimum condition level of 5.0 percent 

(approximately 2,400 miles nationally) 

would minimize the costs impacts 

associated with Poor condition 

pavements on the Interstate System, and 

would allow State DOTs to effectively 

manage the overall performance of the 

pavement network through the delivery 

of a mix of treatments to address all 

pavement condition levels. This would 

optimize investment returns. 

The FHWA also considered current 

target establishment practices used by 

State DOTs and actual pavement 

conditions existing on the Interstate 

System. The FHWA reviewed a sample 

of pavement condition target values in 

use by a number of State DOTs 79 in 

their planning processes and targets 

documented in recent research 

studies.80 The FHWA found only a 

limited number of cases where a State 

DOT has established a target specifically 

addressing pavements on its portion of 

the Interstate System at Poor condition 

levels. In the majority of these cases the 

target was established at or below 5.0 

percent. The FHWA’s proposal is 

consistent with policies set by State 

DOTs that have established targets 

associated with the level of Poor 

pavements on the Interstate System. 

The FHWA also evaluated pavement 

conditions State DOTs submitted to the 

HPMS for the Interstate System in 2012. 

Although the HPMS data submitted in 

2012 was not complete and was not 

reported following the same data 

collection and process standards 

included in this proposal, FHWA 

believes that it provides a general 

understanding of the extent to which 

the proposed threshold could be met 

when implemented. Based on the 2012 

submitted data, FHWA estimates that 

approximately 1.7 percent of the 

Interstate System was in Poor condition 

and that approximately 87 percent of 

State DOTs would meet a 5.0 percent 

threshold on allowable Poor 

pavements.81 It is difficult to accurately 

assess the impacts of the proposed 5.0 

percent minimum condition level on 

State DOT investment programming for 

Interstate System pavements because 

the full baseline of conditions using the 

proposed pavement measures does not 

exist today for every State. The 

estimates discussed above were based 

on a sample of the full data from States 

that had provided a full baseline 

condition data. For this reason, FHWA 

is committed to reassessing the 

minimum Interstate System pavement 

condition level in the future after a 

sufficient level of data is reported to 

establish a baseline and trends of 

pavement conditions on the entire 

Interstate System. The FHWA expects to 

reassess the minimum Interstate 

pavement condition level after the 

completion of the first full performance 

period to determine if additional system 

improvements can be achieved through 

adjustments to the required minimum 

condition level. The FHWA will 

conduct a rulemaking with an 

opportunity for public comment if it is 

determined through the assessment that 

the minimum level should be adjusted. 

The FHWA further evaluated the 2012 

HPMS data to examine the possibility of 

geographical differences in percent lanemiles of the Interstate System in Poor 

pavement condition as described in 23 

U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(B). The FHWA 

evaluated lane-mile distribution of the 

Interstate System pavement conditions 

among different traffic volumes, 

climatic conditions, and terrain types. 

Consequently, the data suggested that 

there is no evidence to conclude that 

there are significant differences in 

percent lane-miles of the Interstate 

System in Poor pavement condition 

among the Interstate System pavement 

sections in these various areas. 

However, FHWA seeks comments on 

the need to establish different 

thresholds for geographic regions. 

A white paper included in the docket 

includes additional information on 

FHWA’s rationale for the proposed 

minimum condition threshold. 

Recognizing the limitations associated 

with an analytical approach to 

developing the threshold, FHWA is 

seeking comment on: 

• The proposed minimum level, 

including suggestions for alternative 

approaches to implementing the 

minimum condition requirements of 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(1); 

• potential impacts resulting from the 

existence of Poor condition Interstate 

System pavements; 

• the appropriate threshold level to 

establish a minimum condition for the 

Interstate pavement system nationally 

and within each State; 

• the need to establish different 

thresholds for different geographic 

regions; 

• the need to reassess and potentially 

adjust, through rulemaking, the 

minimum condition threshold after the 

completion of the first full performance 

period; 

• whether FHWA should, in the final 

rule, establish a minimum condition 

threshold that would become more 

stringent over time, to replace in the 

future the proposed initial 5 percent 

level, in order to reflect the 

improvements made to the system over 

time; and 

• the lowest minimum condition 

level that could be maintained for 

Interstate System pavements in the 

future. 

Discussion of § 490.317 Penalties for 

Not Maintaining Condition 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f), § 490.317 

describes the method FHWA will use to 

assess if a State DOT has maintained the 

minimum condition level for pavements 

on the Interstate System. The FHWA is 

proposing to make this determination 

after the first full year of data collection 

and each year thereafter. Considering 

that this rule is scheduled to be effective 

in 2015, the first determination would 

be made in 2017 (after a full year of data 

collection in 2016) and then annually 

thereafter. The FHWA intends to make 

this determination in a manner that can 

be replicated by State DOTs and others 

interested in assessing State DOT 

compliance with § 490.315(a) by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

extracting the data needed from the 

HPMS to make the determination on a 

specific date each year. The FHWA is 

proposing to extract data from the 

HPMS on June 15th of each year to 

provide sufficient time for State DOTs to 

report pavement conditions for the prior 

year to the HPMS. This timetable would 

also enable any requirements to obligate 

or transfer funds to be in place by the 

next fiscal year. 

If FHWA determines that the 

condition of the Interstate System meets 

the requirement specified in 

§ 490.317(d), then no further action is 

required by the State DOT for the next 

fiscal year. If FHWA determines that a 

State DOT is out of compliance with 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(1), then the State DOT 

would be subject to the requirements 

specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A)(i) and 

(ii). 

The FHWA proposes in § 490.317(e) 

to notify all State DOTs annually of 

their compliance status with the 

minimum condition requirements prior 

to October 1 of the year the 

determination would be made. 

Section 490.317(f) outlines the actions 

that would occur if FHWA determines 

that a State DOT is out of compliance 

with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). This proposed 

section incorporates the requirements 

found in 23 U.S.C. 119(f). Under this 

proposal, States determined to be out of 

compliance would be required to: (1) 

Obligate certain NHPP funds for the 

purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as 

in effect on the day before enactment of 

MAP–21) and increased by an amount 

each year after Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, 

and (2) transfer certain apportioned 

Surface Transportation Program for the 

purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as 

in effect on the day before enactment of 

MAP–21). The day before enactment of 

MAP–21, 23 U.S.C. 119 contained the 

requirements for the Interstate 

Maintenance Program. Pursuant to 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(B), the requirement 

specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A) 

remains in effect until the Interstate 

System pavement condition exceeds the 

minimum condition level established by 

this NPRM. The FHWA is proposing to 

implement this restoration requirement 

by making annual determinations of 

compliance. The FHWA is proposing in 

§ 490.317(d) that it would make the 

determination based on the data 

submitted to the HPMS each year by 

assessing compliance with § 490.315(a) 

for the most recent 2 years. A proposed 

application of this NHPP minimum 

condition penalty is provided in the 

docket. 

The following example (illustrated in 

Table 6) indicates how this provision 

would be carried out. Assuming that 

this rule is effective in 2015, a State 

DOT submits data collected on the 

Interstate System in calendar year 2016 

to the HPMS by April 15, 2017, and data 

collected on the Interstate System in 

calendar year 2017 to the HPMS by 

April 15, 2018. The FHWA would 

review the submitted data for 

completeness and would work with the 

State DOT to address any missing data. 

The FHWA would extract data from the 

HPMS on June 15, 2017, to determine 

State DOT compliance with § 490.315(a) 

in 2016 and would notify the State DOT 

before October 1 of the determination. 

Similarly in 2018, FHWA would extract 

data from the HPMS, check compliance 

with the minimum level for condition of 

pavements, and notify the State DOT 

following the same schedule as 

described for 2017. If FHWA 

determined in both 2017 and 2018 that 

the State DOT did not comply with 

§ 490.315(a), then beginning October 1, 

2018, the State DOT would need to: (1) 

Obligate, from the amount apportioned 

to the State for the NHPP, an amount 

that is not less than the Interstate 

Maintenance apportionment for the FY 

2009, plus 2 percent per year 

compounded annually (for the 5 

additional FYs after 2013); and (2) 

transfer certain apportioned Surface 

Transportation Program funds equal to 

10 percent of Interstate Maintenance 

apportionment for the FY 2009. These 

funds would need to be used to improve 

Interstate pavement conditions (as 

provided under the pre-MAP–21 

Interstate Maintenance Program). In 

2019 and each year thereafter, FHWA 

would assess the State DOT’s 

compliance with § 490.315(a). The State 

DOT would be subject to the obligation 

requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) if in any year it 

is determined that the State DOT was 

out of compliance with § 490.315(a) for 

the most recent 2 years. 

TABLE 6—DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE BASED ON HPMS REPORTING

Data collection year HPMS reporting 

date 

Data to be used 

for compliance 

determination 

Date of 

determination 

and notification 

Obligation 

requirement 

effective date 

(if not meeting 

minimum level 

requirement) 

Obligation requirement 

CY 2016 ........................... April 15, 2017 ..... Data extracted from 

HPMS on June 15, 

2017, for calendar year 

2015 and 2016 Interstate System pavement 

conditions.

Prior to October 

1, 2017.

CY 2017 ........................... April 15, 2018 ..... Data extracted from 

HPMS on June 15, 

2018, for calendar year 

2017 and data that was 

extracted on June 15, 

2017, for calendar year 

2016.

Prior to October 

1, 2018.

October 1, 2018 At least [(FY09IM *) × 

(1.02)2019¥2013] ** + 

[0.10 × (FY09IM *)] *** 

CY 2018 and each year 

thereafter noted as ‘‘CY 

20##’’ the columns to 

the right.

April 15, 20XX+1 Data extracted from 

HPMS on June 15, 

20XX+1 for calendar 

year 20XX, and data 

that was extracted on 

June 15, 20XX for calendar year 20XX–1.

Prior to October 

1, 20XX+1.

October 1, 

20XX+1.

At least [(FY09IM *) × 

(1.02)(20XX∂1)¥2013] ** + 

[0.10 × (FY09IM *)] *** 

* FY 09IM denotes the amount of funds apportioned to a State for FY 2009 under the Interstate Maintenance program. 

** Amount of NHPP to be obligated to addressing Interstate System pavement conditions. 

*** Amount of STP to be transferred to the NHPP to address Interstate System pavement conditions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 373 

Discussion of § 490.319 Other 

Requirements 

To implement the Interstate System 

pavement minimum condition level 

requirement and the issuance of any 

penalties, required under 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(1), FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.319(a) that each State DOT reports 

the required pavement condition 

metrics and data elements outlined in 

§§ 490.311 and 490.309(b)(4), 

respectively, to the HPMS no later than 

April 15 of each year. The FHWA 

recognizes that State DOTs need 

sufficient time after data collection to 

process data, conduct data quality 

management activities, analyze data, 

and carry out other required business 

processes that are necessary to prepare 

data for upload into HPMS. Based on 

previous data management experience, 

FHWA anticipates that additional time 

would be needed after the State DOT 

reports to the HPMS to conduct checks 

to assure data quality and completeness. 

Additionally, sufficient time is needed 

for FHWA’s compliance determination 

for minimum condition level, for State 

DOT notification, and for FHWA to 

issue any resulting penalties so that they 

are effective by the beginning of the next 

fiscal year as required under 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(1). 

Thus, FHWA proposes that the State 

DOTs report to the HPMS the proposed 

Interstate System pavement condition 

metrics and data elements no later than 

April 15 of each year. This would allow 

for sufficient time to carry out the 

necessary steps to make a timely and 

accurate minimum condition 

determination. The FHWA recognizes 

that the proposed schedule to report 

Interstate System data would accelerate 

the time needed to report to the HPMS, 

which may impact a State DOT’s ability 

to effectively process data and ensure 

data quality. Understanding this 

potential impact, FHWA is seeking 

comment from State DOTs on the 

proposed schedule to implement the 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(1) minimum condition 

requirements. 

Provided that this proposed rule 

becomes effective in 2015, the 

determination of compliance with the 

minimum condition requirements 

specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) would be 

carried out by FHWA for the first time 

in 2018, based on information in the 

previous 2 years. The 2017 assessment 

will review 2016 minimum condition 

compliance and the 2018 assessment 

will review 2017 minimum condition 

compliance. Following this 

implementation schedule, any transfer 

and obligation requirements under 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(1) resulting from the 

minimum condition compliance 

determination would not be in effect 

until FY 2019, or by October 1, 2018. 

Thus, the proposed requirement to 

submit Interstate System data by April 

15 would not be in effect until 2017. 

This would allow time for State DOTs 

to prepare for this proposed accelerated 

data reporting requirement. 

In § 490.319(b), FHWA proposes to 

retain the requirement currently in the 

HPMS Field Manual that data for the 

non-Interstate NHS pavement condition 

be reported to HPMS not later than June 

15 of each year. 

In § 490.319(c), FHWA proposes Data 

Quality Management program 

requirements to implement 23 U.S.C. 

150(c)(3)(A)(iv) for pavement condition 

data. Data quality management 

programs are a standard practice in both 

private industry and the public sector 

wherever large quantities of materials, 

products, or data are exchanged. For 

purposes of assessing pavement 

conditions, there are considerable data 

requirements and significant 

consequences attached to the outcomes 

of the analyses. The FHWA proposes 

that each State DOT must have a data 

quality management program for the 

data required to assess pavement 

conditions. This proposal would require 

State DOTs to submit their Data Quality 

Management Programs to FHWA for 

approval. Once approved, State DOTs 

would use that program to collect and 

report data. State DOTs would also be 

required to have FHWA approve 

significant changes prior to 

implementation. A significant change 

would occur when a State DOT changes 

fundamental processes, procedures, or 

acceptance criteria. Examples of 

significant change include moving from 

in-house data collection to contract 

collection, changing from manual to 

automated data collection, contracting 

with an independent assurance firm, 

and similar actions. The design of the 

data quality management program is left 

to discretion of State DOTs, as long as 

it includes the following items: 

• Data Collection equipment, 

calibration, and certification; 

• Certification process for persons 

performing manual data collection, if 

used; 

• Data quality control measures 

conducted both before data collection 

begins and periodically during the data 

collection program; 

• Data sampling, review, and 

checking processes; and 

• Error resolution procedures and 

data acceptance criteria. 

C. Section-by-Section Discussion for 

Subpart D: National Performance 

Management Measures for Assessing 

Bridge Condition 

Discussion of § 490.401 Purpose 

In § 490.401, FHWA proposes to 

specify that bridge condition 

performance measures are applicable to 

all NHS bridges covered under the 

NHPP. In addition, this section 

emphasizes that the data used for the 

performance measures would need to 

include all bridges on the NHS in the 

State regardless of ownership, 

maintenance responsibility, or 

functional classification. 

Discussion of § 490.403 Applicability 

In § 490.403, FHWA proposes to 

specify that the bridge performance 

measures are applicable to all NHS 

bridges including bridges on ramps 

connecting to the NHS as defined by 23 

U.S.C. 103 and NHS bridges that cross 

a State border regardless of ownership 

or maintenance responsibility. The 

FHWA also proposes that State DOTs 

coordinate with all relevant bridge 

owners, such as Federal agencies that 

own NHS bridges and other State DOTs 

that share NHS bridges that cross State 

borders, in order to meet the proposed 

requirements of subpart A. The FHWA 

recognizes that this differs from certain 

established requirements of the NBIS, 

such as the NBI data submittal process 

under which States are not responsible 

for Federal- or tribal-owned bridges. 

Similar to the proposed requirement in 

subpart A that requires coordination 

between State DOTs and MPOs, it is 

appropriate that State DOTs coordinate 

with all relevant NHS bridge owners for 

the proposed bridge condition 

performance measures and targets in 

order to ensure consistency. 

Discussion of § 490.405 Definitions 

In § 490.405, FHWA proposes to use 

the definition of ‘‘bridge’’ found in the 

NBIS (23 CFR 650.305) for this subpart. 

The FHWA recognizes that States may 

have differing definitions for ‘‘bridge.’’ 

These discrepancies would cause 

problems in analyzing collected bridge 

data at the national level, and measuring 

progress toward the national goal of 

‘‘maintaining the highway infrastructure 

asset system in a state of good repair.’’ 

The use of an established definition 

would continue to provide FHWA 

consistent and standardized data to be 

analyzed for the evaluation of State and 

national progress in achieving a state of 

good repair. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

374 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

82 ’’Improving FHWA’s Ability to Assess Highway 

Infrastructure Health,’’ (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/46000/ 

46100/46182/Improving_FHWA_s_ability_to_

assess_highway_infrastructure_health_Pilot_Study_

Rpt.pdf 

The FHWA also proposes to include 

a definition for ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’ 

to identify the population of NHS 

bridges for determining a State’s 

percentage of deck area of bridges 

classified as ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’ 

and implement the penalty for any State 

DOT that does not maintain the 

minimum condition level established by 

23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). ‘‘Structurally 

Deficient’’ is a programmatic term that 

was used to administer the Highway 

Bridge Program. This Program was 

known as the Highway Bridge 

Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Program and was eliminated by MAP– 

21. It was one of three statuses assigned 

to a highway bridge based on an 

evaluation of NBI data for the purposes 

of determining Highway Bridge Program 

eligibility. The proposed definition 

would be the same programmatic 

definition of ‘‘Structurally Deficient’’ 

that was used under the Highway Bridge 

Program. It would provide a continued 

focus of improving a specific population 

of bridges through the penalty and 

minimum condition level provisions 

established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). 

Discussion of § 490.407 National 

Performance Management Measures for 

Assessing Bridge Condition 

In § 490.407, FHWA proposes the two 

performance measures to carry out the 

NHPP for State DOTs to use to assess 

bridge condition on the NHS. The 

proposed measures are: (1) Percentage of 

NHS bridges classified as in Good 

condition; and (2) Percentage NHS 

bridges classified as in Poor condition. 

These performance measures would be 

used to demonstrate how investments of 

Federal-aid funds are utilized toward 

achieving performance targets for all 

NHS bridges, including bridges on 

ramps connecting to the NHS. The NHS 

is defined in 23 U.S.C. 103. 

Discussion of § 490.409 Calculation of 

National Performance Management 

Measures for Assessing Bridge 

Condition 

In § 490.409(a), FHWA proposes the 

method that would be used to calculate 

the bridge measures proposed in 

§ 490.407 and outlines how FHWA, 

State DOTs, and MPOs would use the 

bridge measures. 

In § 490.409(b), FHWA proposes the 

source of data and the method to be 

used in assigning classification for the 

condition of bridges on the NHS, 

including bridges on ramps connecting 

to the NHS. The Good, Fair, and Poor 

classification of bridges on the NHS 

utilizes data elements from the NBI 

database. State DOTs measure and 

classify a number of standard features 

for bridges in their jurisdiction and then 

report them to FHWA on an annual 

basis. Based on their NBI data, State 

DOTs would be required to classify all 

bridges within a State into one of the 

three classifications: Good, Fair, or Poor. 

These classifications and their 

development are consistent with the 

conclusions and recommendations of a 

2011 FHWA study on the use of 

performance management approaches 

titled, ‘‘Improving FHWA’s Ability to 

Assess Highway Infrastructure 

Health.’’ 82 As noted in this study, there 

are two basic methods FHWA could use 

as a basis for developing a measure to 

assess bridge condition. The first is a 

weighted average method that consists 

of calculating a measure of structural 

adequacy based on a weighted average 

of the deck, superstructure, and substructure condition ratings of a bridge. 

The second is the minimum condition 

rating method which calculates a 

measure of structural adequacy based on 

the lowest condition rating of deck, 

superstructure, and sub-structure of a 

bridge. 

This section also proposes that the 

condition classification of Good, Fair, or 

Poor, be based on a bridge’s condition 

ratings for the following NBI Items: 58— 

Deck, 59—Superstructure, 60— 

Substructure, and 62—Culverts. Various 

methods for determining the bridge 

condition based on these NBI items 

have been studied by FHWA as well as 

suggested by States, including: Each 

item contributing equally to a final 

average; some items contributing more 

than others to achieve a weighted 

average; and the minimum rated item 

controlling (minimum condition rating 

method). In the case of culverts, there is 

only one item (Item 62—Culvert) to rate, 

since culverts do not have NBI Items 58, 

59, and 60. 

The data within FHWA’s NBI 

database, which includes bridge 

condition and geometric information, is 

utilized to determine overall bridge 

condition. Data in the NBI database is 

provided to FHWA by State DOTs and 

Federal agencies as required by 23 CFR 

650.315. State DOTs are required to 

submit NBI data annually in accordance 

with 23 U.S.C. 144(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 

144(h)(2)(D)(ii). 

Phases of the previously identified 

2011 FHWA study, ‘‘Improving FHWA’s 

Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure 

Health,’’ evaluated five different 

methods (four different weighted 

average methods and one minimum 

condition rating method) to assign 

bridge condition based on Good, Fair, or 

Poor ratings. For this study, the NBI 

database was selected as the logical data 

source because of the consistency of its 

representation of over 40 years of 

collected data, and because it is used by 

nearly every State DOT as the current 

basis for their bridge decisionmaking. 

The study discussed and evaluated five 

different methods (four different 

weighted average methods and one 

minimum condition rating method). The 

study concluded that for the Interstate 

System— 

• Percentages of bridges classified as 

Good, Fair, or Poor were consistent for 

all methods with little variation; 

• minimum condition rating method 

resulted in the highest percentage of 

bridges in Poor condition; 

• percentages of bridges classified as 

Good, Fair, or Poor based on the four 

weighted average methods are not 

sensitive to the weights; and 

• bridge deck conditions alone are 

not typically the driving factor in the 

Good, Fair, or Poor calculations. 

The FHWA further assessed the 

different methods and observed that the 

magnitude in differences between 

condition ratings for individual NBI 

items was somewhat nullified when a 

final average or weighted average 

method was employed. This observation 

was also noted in the 2011 study. The 

masking or obscuring of possible poor 

bridge conditions is a major concern 

with the final average or weighted 

average methods. Although these 

methods could be further refined, the 

development, subjectivity, and 

complexity of such methods makes 

them less desirable than the simple 

minimum condition rating method, 

especially since analyses indicate that a 

refined weighted method would result 

in the same general classification as the 

minimum condition rating method. 

Therefore, FHWA proposes that for each 

applicable bridge, the performance 

measures for determining condition be 

based on the minimum value for the 

following NBI Items: 58—Deck, 59— 

Superstructure, 60—Substructure, and 

62—Culverts. The FHWA further 

proposes to weight this condition by the 

respective deck area of each bridge and 

express condition totals as a percentage 

of the total deck area of bridges in a 

State. The FHWA recognizes that this 

proposed approach to determining 

bridge condition is different from the 

approach to determining pavement 

condition, which is based on a 

cumulative assessment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 375 

The following flow diagram, Figure 

11, provides in visual format the 

classification ratings identified in 

§ 490.409(b)(1) through (3). They are as 

follows: § 490.409(b)(1) assigns a Good 

classification when all of the NBI items 

are rated as 7 or above; § 490.409(a)(2) 

identifies Fair classification when any 

of the NBI items are rated as 5 or 6; and 

§ 490.409(a)(3) assigns a Poor 

classification when any of the NBI items 

are 4 or less. These classification ratings 

are then used to determine the 

performance measures identified in 

§ 490.407. 

In § 490.409(c), FHWA proposes how 

to calculate the performance measures 

for assessing bridge condition identified 

in § 490.407. Using NBI data, the ratio 

of the total deck area of bridges in a 

condition classification to the total deck 

area of applicable bridges is calculated. 

The deck area of a bridge is proposed to 

be the product of NBI Items 49— 

Structure Length, and 52—Deck Width. 

In the case of a roadway on fill carried 

across a pipe(s) or culvert in which 

headwalls do not affect the flow of 

traffic, NBI Item 32—Approach 

Roadway Width is utilized instead of 

Item 52—Deck Width, to calculate the 

deck area. The FHWA proposes that this 

ratio would be calculated by first 

summing the total deck area for each of 

the three classification conditions 

(Good, Fair, and Poor) for all applicable 

bridges. Next, the total deck area for all 

of the applicable bridges is calculated. 

Finally, the ratio is determined by 

dividing the total deck area of bridges 

for a classification condition by the total 

deck area for the applicable bridges. The 

result would be multiplied by 100 to get 

the final percentages for the 

performance measures (the percent of 

bridges in a particular classification). 

The equation is as follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.018</GPH> EP05JA15.019</GPH>
376 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

In § 490.409(d), FHWA proposes that 

these measures be used to establish 

targets and report targets and condition. 

In § 490.409(e), FHWA notes that all 

of the NBI Items (e.g., NBI Item 49— 

Structure Length, NBI Item 52—Deck 

Width) listed in this section are 

included in the ‘‘Recording and Coding 

Guide for the Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,’’ 

which is incorporated by reference in 

§ 490.111. 

Discussion of § 490.411 Establishment 

of Minimum Level for Condition for 

Bridges 

In § 490.411(a) through (c), FHWA 

incorporates the minimum condition 

level for bridges on the NHS established 

by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). The minimum 

condition level is for State DOTs to 

maintain bridges so that the percentage 

of the deck area of bridges on the NHS 

classified as Structurally Deficient does 

not exceed 10 percent. This minimum is 

applicable to bridges on the NHS, to 

bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS 

within a State, and to bridges on the 

NHS that cross a State border. 

The FHWA also proposes the source 

of data and the method to be used in 

assigning a classification of Structurally 

Deficient to a bridge. The NBI is the 

definitive source for national bridge 

information and has been used for many 

years to classify bridges as Structurally 

Deficient, determine eligibility for the 

Highway Bridge Program, and apportion 

Federal-aid funds. It is for these reasons 

the NBI is proposed to be the source of 

data for classifying a bridge as 

Structurally Deficient. 

This section also proposes that the 

classification of Structurally Deficient 

be based on a bridge’s condition ratings 

for the following NBI Items: 58—Deck, 

59—Superstructure, 60—Substructure, 

62—Culverts, and a bridge’s appraisal 

ratings for NBI Items 67—Structural 

Evaluation, and 71—Waterway 

Adequacy. The proposed method for 

classification would be the same 

method used under the Highway Bridge 

Program. This classification 

methodology is found in the former 

Federal-aid Policy Guide NonRegulatory Supplement, NS 23 CFR, 

Part 650 D, dated September 30, 1992, 

Transmittal 5, paragraph 9.a. (http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/

0650dsup.cfm). This method would 

provide a continued focus of improving 

a specific population of bridges through 

the minimum condition level provisions 

established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). 

In order to effectively implement 

FHWA’s determination of State DOT 

minimum condition level and 

assessment of penalty in a timely 

manner, FHWA proposes in 

§ 490.411(d) to make minimum 

condition level determinations for NHS 

bridges on an annual basis. These 

determinations would be based on data 

cleared in the NBI as of June 15 of each 

year. Under the NBIS, State DOTs are 

allowed up to 90 days after the date of 

inspection to enter Structure Inventory 

and Appraisal data into their inventory 

for State DOT bridges. For all other 

bridges, they are allowed up to 180 

days. This time is needed for data 

processing, data quality management, 

data analysis, and other required 

business processes necessary to report 

quality data. Based on previous 

experiences with data management, 

FHWA anticipates State DOTs will need 

90 days after submitting their inventory 

to the NBI to conduct checks to ensure 

data quality and completeness. 

Additionally, sufficient time is needed 

for FHWA’s minimum condition level 

determination, for State DOT 

notification, and for FHWA to issue any 

resulting penalties so that they are 

effective by the beginning of the next 

fiscal year. After FHWA makes its 

compliance determination, it would 

notify all State DOTs of its 

determination prior to October 1 of the 

year in which the determination was 

made. 

Thus, FHWA proposes in § 490.411(e) 

that the State DOTs submit their most 

current NBI data on highway bridges to 

FHWA no later than March 15 of each 

year. The FHWA recognizes that this is 

change from the practice of submitting 

NBI data every April 1; however, this 

change would allow for sufficient time 

to make a timely and accurate minimum 

condition determination. 

The FHWA estimates that less than 1 

percent of all bridges on the NHS are on 

Federal or tribal lands. The FHWA 

encourages State DOTs to consult and 

coordinate with all relevant entities 

(e.g., Federal Land Management 

Agencies, tribal governments) so that 

NBI data for NHS bridges on Federal or 

tribal lands within a State’s boundaries 

can be provided and considered when 

FHWA determines whether a State DOT 

has complied with the minimum 

condition requirements. Understanding 

this potential impact, FHWA is seeking 

comment from State DOTs on the 

proposal to implement the 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(2) minimum condition 

requirements. 

The determination of compliance 

with the minimum condition 

requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(2) would be carried out by FHWA 

for fiscal year 2017 and annually 

thereafter. This timing is based on an 

assessment of minimum condition 

compliance NBI data submitted in 2014, 

2015, and 2016. Following this 

implementation schedule, any penalties 

resulting from the minimum condition 

compliance determination would not be 

in effect until FY 2017 or by October 1, 

2016. 

In § 490.411(f), FHWA notes that all of 

the NBI Items (e.g., NBI Item 49— 

Structure Length, NBI Item 52—Deck 

Width) listed in this section are 

included in the ‘‘Recording and Coding 

Guide for the Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges’’, 

which is incorporated by reference in 

490.111. 

Discussion of § 490.413 Penalties for 

Not Maintaining Bridge Condition 

In § 490.413, FHWA incorporates into 

the proposed regulation the penalty for 

any State DOT that does not maintain 

the minimum condition level 

established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). The 

proposed section generally describes the 

minimum condition requirement and 

the consequences when a State fails to 

comply with those requirements. 

In order to assess State DOT 

compliance with the minimum 

condition, for the 3-year period 

preceding the date of the determination, 

FHWA would evaluate annually 

whether more than 10.0 percent of the 

total deck area of NHS bridges in the 

State have been classified as structurally 

deficient. If more than 10 percent of the 

total deck area of NHS bridges in the 

State are classified as structurally 

deficient for the 3-year period preceding 

the date of determination, then the State 

would need to comply with the 

proposed 490.413, which incorporates 

the requirements found in 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(2). 

Under this proposal, States that do 

not meet the minimum condition 

requirements would be required to 

obligate a set aside amount equal to 50 

percent of the funds apportioned to the 

State for fiscal year 2009 to carry out the 

Highway Bridge Program, 23 U.S.C. 144, 

(as in effect on the day before enactment 

of MAP–21) from the amounts 

apportioned to a State for a fiscal year 

under section 104(b)(1) (the NHPP) only 

for eligible NHS bridge projects. The 

day before enactment of MAP–21, 23 

U.S.C. 144 contained the requirements 

for the Highway Bridge Program. 

The FHWA is proposing to require an 

obligation of a set-aside of certain NHPP 

funds during the fiscal year following 

the determination. While 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(2) only references set-aside, 

FHWA is proposing that set aside funds 

be obligated in order to implement the 

set aside requirement consistent with 

congressional treatment to address 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 377 

83Questions and Answer 2 on FHWA’s MAP–21 

Web site (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/ 

qabridges.cfm), posted on 9/25/2012, provides 

information on the 3-year period that will be used 

for the first determination of compliance. 

Interstate Pavement Condition, which 

requires, in part, an obligation of certain 

NHPP funds if the State does not meet 

the minimum pavement condition 

requirements. The FHWA also proposes 

that the bridge minimum condition 

penalty would take effect during the 

fiscal year following the FHWA’s 

determination. 

A set aside is derived from a funding 

category and results in a portion of that 

funding being segregated and dedicated 

for a specific purpose (the set aside 

implementing this provision would be 

segregated from NHPP funds and 

dedicated to addressing NHS bridge 

conditions). Dedication to address 

bridge condition requires timely 

obligation. An obligation is considered 

a contractual commitment, which 

evidences the commitment of funds for 

the specific purpose. Pursuant to 

authority under 23 U.S.C. 315 and after 

taking into account the heading of 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(A) indicating that this 

provision is a ‘‘penalty,’’ FHWA 

believes it would be appropriate to 

require both a set aside and obligation 

of NHPP funds. Implementation of the 

requirement in this manner would cause 

the States not to lose funds but, States 

would be required to timely obligate the 

set aside funds to address NHS bridge 

condition. Thus the States subject to 

this requirement would lose some 

flexibility with NHPP funds when the 

funds are obligated to address the bridge 

deficiencies. A requirement to obligate, 

in addition to set aside, NHPP funds 

would result in funding dedicated to 

improving NHS bridges. In addition, 

FHWA believes it is appropriate to 

specify the timing as to when the 

provision would take effect; otherwise 

the provision would have little 

meaning. 

Both of these requirements would be 

consistent with the minimum Interstate 

pavement condition penalty in 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A), which requires an 

obligation of certain funds within a 

specific time period. To require 

different outcomes with respect to 

funding for pavement minimum 

condition and bridge minimum 

condition, when the purpose of both 

provisions is essentially the same (to 

require funding to be directed to 

improve condition), would seem to 

place a priority on pavement condition 

over bridge condition with no rationale 

to support the disparate treatment. This 

consistency in application of the 

penalty provisions is also important as 

pavement and bridge condition are both 

part of the NHPP program. The FHWA 

does not believe that prioritizing 

pavement condition over bridge 

condition is consistent with the national 

goal in 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(2) of 

maintaining all infrastructure assets in a 

state of good repair. 

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(B), the 

requirement specified in 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(2)(A) remains in effect until less 

than 10.0 percent of the total deck area 

of the States’ NHS bridges is located on 

bridges that have been classified as 

structurally deficient. The FHWA is 

proposing to implement this restoration 

requirement by making annual 

determinations of compliance. 

As proposed in § 490.413(b), the 

determination of compliance with the 

minimum condition requirements 

specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) would be 

carried out by FHWA in 2016 and 

annually thereafter. This timing is based 

on an assessment of minimum condition 

compliance with NBI data submitted in 

2014, 2015, and 2016. Following this 

implementation schedule, any penalties 

resulting from the minimum condition 

compliance determination would not be 

in effect until FY 2017, or after October 

1, 2016. State DOTs have been and 

currently are submitting the necessary 

NBI data to FHWA. As such, FHWA will 

have the data to make an annual 

determination of compliance beginning 

in 2016.83 A proposed application of 

this NHPP minimum condition penalty 

is provided in the docket along with an 

example of its application. 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above will be 

considered and will be available for 

examination in the docket at the address 

noted in the above ADDRESSES section. 

Comments received after the comment 

closing date will be filed in the docket 

and will be considered to the extent 

practicable. A final rule may be 

published at any time after close of the 

comment period. 

Please note that the proposed 

regulatory text that is presented below 

builds on, but is separate from, the 

regulatory text proposed in the FHWA’s 

first Performance Measure NPRM 

published in the Federal Register. The 

regulatory text proposed in that first 

NPRM is included in the docket. 

Comments on that NPRM should be 

submitted in accordance with the 

instructions contained in that NPRM 

(docket number USDOT–2013–0020). 

When the three Performance 

Management rulemakings are 

completed, the combined regulatory text 

from each of the three rules will 

represent the entirety of 23 CFR part 

490. 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The FHWA has determined that this 

proposed rule constitutes an 

economically significant regulatory 

action within the meaning of Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12866 and within the 

meaning of the DOT regulatory policies 

and procedures. This action complies 

with E.O.s 12866 and 13563. This action 

is considered ‘‘economically 

significant’’ because this rulemaking 

will result in the transformation of the 

Federal-aid highway program so that the 

program focuses on national goals, 

provides for a greater level of 

accountability and transparency, and 

provides a means for the most efficient 

investment of Federal transportation 

funds. The FHWA has filed into the 

docket a Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(regulatory analysis or RIA) in support 

of the NPRM on National Performance 

Measures for Assessing Pavement and 

Bridge Conditions. The regulatory 

analysis estimates the economic impact, 

in terms of costs and benefits, on 

Federal, State, and local governments, 

as well as private entities regulated 

under this action, as required by E.O. 

12866 and E.O. 13563, but does not 

currently attempt to directly quantify 

the changes from the improved 

decisionmaking. The economic impacts 

are measured on an incremental basis, 

relative to current pavement and bridge 

condition reporting practices. 

This section of the NPRM identifies 

the estimated costs and benefits 

resulting from the proposed rule in 

order to inform policy makers and the 

public of the relative value of the 

current proposal. The complete RIA 

may be accessed from the rulemaking’s 

docket (docket number FHWA–2013– 

0053). 

The cornerstone of MAP–21’s 

transformation of the highway program 

is the transition to a performance-based 

program. In accordance with the law, 

State DOTs would invest resources in 

projects to achieve performance targets 

that make progress toward national 

goals areas. The national performance 

goal area established for infrastructure 

condition is to maintain the highway 

infrastructure asset system in a state of 

good repair. In order to carry out this 

mandate, MAP–21 requires FHWA to 

promulgate a rule to establish pavement 

and bridge condition performance 

measures and standards. As required by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

84A TMA is an urbanized area having a 

population of over 200,000 or otherwise requested 

by the Governor and the MPO and officially 

designated by FHWA or FTA. 23 U.S.C. 134(k). 

MAP–21, this NPRM identifies the 

following pavement and bridge 

performance measures for which State 

DOTs and MPOs must collect and report 

data, establish targets for performance, 

and make progress toward achievement 

of targets: 

1. Percentage of lane-miles of the 

Interstate System in Good condition; 

2. Percentage of lane-miles of the 

Interstate System in Poor condition; 

3. Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Good condition; 

4. Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Poor condition; 

5. Percentage of NHS bridges 

classified as in Good condition; and 

6. Percentage of NHS bridges 

classified as in Poor condition. 

Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule 

To estimate costs for the proposed 

rule, FHWA assessed the level of effort, 

expressed in labor hours and the labor 

categories, and capital needed to 

comply with each component of the 

proposed rule. Level of effort by labor 

category is monetized with loaded wage 

rates to estimate total costs. 

Table 7 displays the total cost of the 

proposed rule for the 10-year study 

period (2015–2024). Total costs are 

estimated to be $196.4 million 

undiscounted, $149.1 million 

discounted at 7 percent, and $173.2 

million discounted at 3 percent. The 

costs in the table assume a portion of 

MPOs, approximately half of the 

estimated 420 MPOs, would establish 

their own targets and a portion would 

adopt State DOT targets. It is assumed 

that State DOTs and MPOs serving 

TMAs 84 would use staff to establish 

performance targets and MPOs not 

serving a TMA would agree to plan and 

program projects so that they contribute 

toward the accomplishment of the 

relevant State DOT targets and would 

therefore not incur any incremental 

costs. There are currently an estimated 

210 MPOs serving TMAs. The FHWA 

made this assumption because larger 

MPOs may have more resources 

available to develop performance 

targets. The FHWA believes that this is 

a conservative estimate as larger MPOs 

may elect not to establish their own 

targets for any variety of reasons, 

including resource availability. 

TABLE 7—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Cost components 

10-yr Total cost 

Undiscounted 7% 3% 

Section 490.105–109—General Information, Target Establishment, Reporting on 

Progress, and Making Significant Progress ........................................................... $93,283,261 $64,861,869 $79,297,035 

Establish and Update Performance Targets ...................................................... 39,198,632 28,462,495 33,931,374 

Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving Performance Targets .............. 1,122,098 703,058 913,432 

Reporting on Performance Targets Progress .................................................... 52,962,531 35,696,316 44,452,229 

Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Interstate IRI, Rutting, and Faulting .......... 30,712,622 23,081,249 26,984,444 

Data Collection: IRI measurement in both directions ........................................ 24,283,997 18,249,988 21,336,184 

Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting ............................................ 489,800 368,096 430,344 

Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting ........................................... 979,600 736,192 860,687 

Data processing costs: Additional IRI data ........................................................ 1,653,075 1,242,324 1,452,410

Data processing costs: Additional rutting data ................................................... 1,836,750 1,380,360 1,613,789 

Data processing costs: Additional faulting data ................................................. 1,469,400 1,104,288 1,291,031 

Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Interstate Cracking .................................... 15,225,866 11,872,243 13,587,510 

Fully Automated State DOTs: Additional Data Quality Control Costs ............... 1,224,500 920,240 1,075,859 

Semi-Automated State DOTs: Additional Data Processing & Quality Control 

Costs ............................................................................................................... 4,006,853 3,011,243 3,520,464 

Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting: Training costs to adopt automated methods ............................................................................................... 1,729,138 1,729,138 1,729,138 

Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting: Data quality control costs ........ 8,265,375 6,211,622 7,262,049 

Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Non-Interstate NHS IRI, Rutting, and 

Faulting ................................................................................................................... 5,616,835 4,050,700 4,855,720 

Data Collection costs: Increase IRI Measurement to Cover 100 percent of 

non-interstate NHS miles ................................................................................ 395,566 285,271 341,965

Data processing costs: Additional rutting and faulting data collected ............... 636,740 459,199 550,458 

Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting ............................................ 2,546,960 1,836,795 2,201,832 

Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting ........................................... 2,037,568 1,469,436 1,761,466 

Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Non-Interstate NHS Cracking ................... 4,040,850 2,914,145 3,493,291 

Additional data quality control costs for new data collection ............................. 4,040,850 2,914,145 3,493,291 

Section 490.309—Data Requirements—Capital Costs ............................................. 16,600,000 15,891,841 16,254,041 

Profiler ................................................................................................................ 9,100,000 8,391,841 8,754,041 

Faulting Software ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Cracking Video Equipment and Software Purchase .......................................... 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 

Section 490.313—Calculation of performance management measures ................... 8,242,259 7,785,869 8,019,297 

Reprogramming of software to allow Performance Calculations ....................... 6,405,509 6,405,509 6,405,509 

FHWA’s Management of Data Submissions ...................................................... 244,900 184,048 215,172 

Filtering out Bridge Pavement from Pavement Data ......................................... 1,591,850 1,196,312 1,398,617 

Section 490.319—Other Requirements ..................................................................... 15,962,695 12,007,317 14,030,362 

Develop a Quality Management Program .......................................................... 44,194 44,194 44,194 

Run New Quality Management Program ........................................................... 3,061,250 2,300,601 2,689,648 

Improve Quality Management Program ............................................................. 12,857,251 9,662,522 11,296,520 

Section 490.407—Calculation of bridge performance measures .............................. 6,759,061 6,671,211 6,716,144 

Update Software to generate good/fair/poor condition ...................................... 6,405,509 6,405,509 6,405,509 

FHWA’s Management of Data Submissions ...................................................... 353,552 265,703 310,635 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 379 

85U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration. 2013 Status of the 

Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 

Conditions & Performance Report to Congress. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/pdfs/

littlebook.pdf. 

TABLE 7—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

Cost components 

10-yr Total cost 

Undiscounted 7% 3% 

Total Cost of Proposed Rule .............................................................................. 196,443,449 149,136,445 173,237,846 

* Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Break-Even Analysis 

Currently, State DOTs differ from 

State to State in the way they measure 

the condition of their pavement. We do 

not believe their current methods are 

inadequate, but the methods are 

inconsistent and these differences 

hinder accurate analysis of 

infrastructure conditions at the national 

level. The proposed rulemaking would 

establish uniform condition measures 

for the purpose of carrying out the 

NHPP to assess condition of pavements 

on the NHS (excluding the Interstate 

System), condition of pavements on the 

Interstate System, and condition of 

bridges on the NHS. In addition, the 

rule would establish processes that: (1) 

State DOTs and MPOs use to report 

measures and establish performance 

targets, and (2) FHWA uses to assess 

progress that State DOTs have made 

toward achieving targets. 

Upon implementation, FHWA expects 

that the proposed rule would result in 

certain benefits. Specifically, the 

proposed rule would allow for more 

informed decisionmaking on bridge and 

pavement condition-related project, 

program, and policy choices. The 

proposed rule also would yield greater 

accountability because the MAP–21- 

mandated reporting would increase 

visibility and transparency. In addition, 

the proposed rule would help focus the 

Federal-aid highway program on 

achieving balanced performance 

outcomes. 

These benefits resulting from the 

proposed rule (i.e., more informed 

decisionmaking, greater accountability, 

and greater focus on making progress 

toward the national goal for 

infrastructure condition) would lead to 

improved pavement and bridge 

conditions. The benefits resulting from 

performance measurement, while real 

and substantial, are difficult to 

monetize. For this proposed rule, 

FHWA quantified these benefits of the 

proposed rule by performing break-even 

analyses as described in Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–4. 

A break-even analysis calculates the 

threshold a specific variable must 

achieve in order for benefits to equal 

costs, holding every other variable in 

the analysis constant. For both 

pavements and bridges, FHWA focused 

its break-even analyses on VOCs savings 

because users typically garner the 

greatest concentration of benefits from 

transportation projects. The DOT 

estimated the number of road miles of 

deficient pavement that would have to 

be improved and the number of posted 

bridges that would have to be avoided 

in order for the benefits of the rule to 

justify the costs. 

Table 8 presents the results from the 

pavement break-even analysis. The 

results represent the savings in VOC to 

automobile and truck drivers from 

pavement conditions that are improved 

from Poor to Good. The analysis shows 

that the proposed rule would need to 

result in the net improvement of 

approximately 435 miles of pavement 

(i.e., to Good condition) per year, or 

4,350 miles over 10 years, that would 

otherwise not have been improved 

without the proposed rule. The annual 

break-even point represents 

approximately 1.9 percent of the NHS 

miles currently estimated to be in poor 

condition. Based on recent trends in 

improving road condition, FHWA 

believes improving 435 miles of 

pavement per year or 4,350 miles over 

10 years as a result of this rule is 

achievable. Using a related benchmark 

as a point of reference, between 2000 

and 2010, the percentage of VMT on 

NHS pavements with ‘‘Good’’ ride 

quality increased from 48 percent to 60 

percent. On average, this is equivalent 

to a 1.2 percent increase in improved 

VMT per year.85

TABLE 8—BREAK-EVEN IMPROVEMENT OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS (IMPROVED FROM POOR) 

Annual improved 

from poor VMT 

needed 

Annual poor VMT 

(total VMT * 4.9%) 

Percent of poor 

VMT needing 

improvement 

Current NHS 

miles estimated to 

be in poor 

condition 

Approximate 

number of 

poor NHS 

miles needing 

improvement 

from poor 

a b c = a ÷ b d e = c * d 

Maintenance .......................................... 7,398,564,204 79,778,275,896 9.24% 22,827 2,109 

Fuel ........................................................ 1,946,081,966 79,778,275,896 2.43% 22,827 555 

Tires ....................................................... 175,596,118,543 79,778,275,896 219.25% 22,827 50,049 

Total ................................................ 1,527,395,633 79,778,275,896 1.91% 22,827 435 

* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis. 

Table 9 presents the results from the 

bridge break-even analysis which 

calculates the number of year-long 

bridge postings that would need to be 

reduced as a result of the proposed rule 

in order for the benefits of the bridge 

condition requirements to justify the 

costs. The FHWA estimated the average 

cost per year of a bridge posting 

(column E in Table 9). With the 

undiscounted cost of the bridge 

requirements and this average cost of a 

bridge posting, the analysis estimates 

the number of year-long bridge postings 

that need to be avoided in order to make 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the benefits of the proposed rule justify 

the cost. The break-even analysis 

estimates that 2 year-long bridge 

postings need to be avoided over 10 

years in order for benefits to justify 

costs. As a basis for comparison, NBI 

data indicate that currently there are 

approximately 85 NHS bridges posted 

for trucks. Over the 10 year period of 

2003–2012 the number of NHS bridges 

posted for truck declined from 145 to 

85. Trends in the United States 

demonstrated by bridge owners provide 

evidence that posted bridges receive 

priority consideration in work 

schedules. With the increased 

performance requirements of this rule, it 

is reasonable to assume that at a 

minimum, a reduction in the posted 

load limit of one bridge annually 

nationwide would be achieved to 

provide the needed benefit to justify the 

costs of complying with this rule. 

TABLE 9—BREAK-EVEN BRIDGE DETOURS

Undiscounted 10 year cost of 

proposed bridge rule 

Average 

truck user 

cost per 

VMT 

Average 

distance 

per 

detour 

(miles) 

Average 

cost of 

detour 

per trucks 

Average cost per year of each 

bridge posting 

Equivalent 

number of 

year-long 

posts that 

need to be 

avoided 

Annual number of 

year-long posts that 

need to be avoided 

a b c d = b × c e = d * 1,940 ADT * 365.25 f = a ÷ e g = f ÷ 10 years 

$53,400,692 ................................... $1.69 20 $33.82 $23,964,028 2 0.2 

* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612), FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this action on small entities 

and has determined that the action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed rule affects State 

governments and MPOs. State DOTs are 

not included in the definition of small 

entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. The 

MPOs are considered governmental 

jurisdictions, so the small entity 

standard for these entities is whether 

the affected MPOs serve less than 

50,000 people. As discussed in the RIA, 

the proposed rule is expected to impose 

costs on MPOs that serve TMAs, which 

generally have populations exceeding 

200,000. Further, MPOs serve urbanized 

areas with populations of more than 

50,000. Therefore, the MPOs that incur 

economic impacts under this proposed 

rule do not meet the definition of a 

small entity. 

Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act does not apply, and I hereby certify 

that the proposed action would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The FHWA has determined that this 

NPRM would not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $143.1 million or more in any one 

year (when adjusted for inflation) in 

2012 dollars for either State, local, and 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector. The FHWA will 

publish a final analysis, including its 

response to public comments, when it 

publishes a final rule. Additionally, the 

definition of ‘‘Federal mandate’’ in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

excludes financial assistance of the type 

in which State, local, or tribal 

governments have authority to adjust 

their participation in the program in 

accordance with changes made in the 

program by the Federal Government. 

The Federal-aid highway program 

permits this type of flexibility. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

The FHWA has analyzed this NPRM 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The 

FHWA has determined that this action 

would not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism assessment. The FHWA 

has also determined that this action 

would not preempt any State law or 

State regulation or affect the States’ 

ability to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program Number 20.205, 

Highway Planning and Construction. 

The regulations implementing E.O. 

12372 regarding intergovernmental 

consultation on Federal programs and 

activities apply to this program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from OMB for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The FHWA 

has analyzed this proposed rule under 

the PRA and has determined that this 

proposal contains collection of 

information requirements for the 

purposes of the PRA. 

This proposed rule provides 

definitions and outlines processes for 

bridge and pavement performance 

measures and reporting. Some burdens 

in this proposed rule would be realized 

in other reporting areas as described 

below. The PRA activities that are 

already covered by existing OMB 

Clearances have reference numbers for 

those clearances as follows: HPMS 

information collection, OMB No. 2125– 

0028 with an expiration of June 30, 

2015; and National Bridge Inventory, 

OMB No. 2125–0501 with an expiration 

date of December 31, 2014. Any increase 

in PRA burdens caused by MAP–21 in 

these areas will be addressed in PRA 

approval requests associated with those 

collections. 

This rulemaking requires the 

submittal of biennial performance 

reports. The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule under the PRA and has 

determined the following: 

Respondents: Approximately 262 

applicants consisting of States and 

MPOs. 

Frequency: Biennially. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: Approximately 416 hours to 

complete and submit the report. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: Approximately 54,496 hours 

annually. 

The FHWA invites interested persons 

to submit comments on any aspect of 

the information collection. Comments 

submitted on the information collection 

proposed in this NPRM will be 

summarized or included, or both, in the 

request for OMB approval of this 

information collection. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 381 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and 

has determined that this action would 

not have any effect on the quality of the 

environment and meets the criteria for 

the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 

771.117(c)(20), which covers the 

promulgation of regulations. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule under E.O. 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate 

that this proposed action would affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

12630. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This action meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminates 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under E.O. 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA 

certifies that this action would not cause 

an environmental risk to health or safety 

that might disproportionately affect 

children. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under E.O.13175, dated November 6, 

2000, and believes that the proposed 

action would not have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes; 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian tribal 

governments; and would not preempt 

tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking 

addresses obligations of Federal funds 

to States for Federal-aid highway 

projects and would not impose any 

direct compliance requirements on 

Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a 

tribal summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

The E.O. 12898 requires that each 

Federal agency make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minorities 

and low-income populations. The 

FHWA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not raise any 

environmental justice issues. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. 

The FHWA has determined that this is 

not a significant energy action under 

E.O. 13211 and is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number is 

assigned to each regulatory action listed 

in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The regulation identification 

number contained in the heading of this 

document can be used to cross-reference 

this action with the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490 

Bridges, Highway safety, Highways 

and roads, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

18, 2014, under authority delegated in 49 

CFR 1.85. 

Gregory G. Nadeau, 

Acting Administrator, FHWA Administration. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part 

490, as proposed to be added at 79 FR 

13846, March 11, 2014, as follows: 

PART 490—NATIONAL 

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 

MEASURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 490 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i), and 

150; 49 CFR 1.85. 

■ 2. Revise subpart A to read as follows: 

Subpart A—General Information 

Sec. 

490.101 Definitions 

490.103 Data Requirements 

490.105 Establishment of Performance 

Targets 

490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets 

490.109 Assessing Significant Progress 

toward Achieving the Performance 

Targets for the National Highway 

Performance Program 

490.111 Incorporation by reference 

§ 490.101 Definitions. 

Unless otherwise specified, the 

following definitions apply to the entire 

part 490: 

Full Extent means continuous 

collection and evaluation of pavement 

condition data over the entire length of 

the roadway. 

Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) is a national level 

highway information system that 

includes data on the extent, condition, 

performance, use, and operating 

characteristics of the Nation’s highways. 

Mainline highways means the through 

travel lanes of any highway. Mainline 

highways specifically exclude ramps, 

shoulders, turn lanes, crossovers, rest 

areas, and other pavement surfaces that 

are not part of the roadway normally 

travelled by through traffic. 

Measure means an expression based 

on a metric that is used to establish 

targets and to assess progress toward 

achieving the established targets (e.g., a 

measure for flight on-time performance 

is percent of flights that arrive on time, 

and a corresponding metric is an 

arithmetic difference between 

scheduled and actual arrival time for 

each flight). 

Metric means a quantifiable indicator 

of performance or condition. 

National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is an 

FHWA database containing bridge 

information and inspection data for all 

highway bridges on public roads, on 

and off Federal-aid highways, including 

tribally owned and federally owned 

bridges, that are subject to the National 

Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). 

Non-Urbanized Area means any 

geographic area that is not an 

‘‘urbanized area’’ under either 23 U.S.C. 

101(a)(34). 

Performance period means a 

determined time period during which 

condition/performance is measured and 

evaluated to: (1) Assess condition/

performance with respect to baseline 

condition/performance; and (2) track 

progress toward the achievement of the 

targets that represent the intended 

condition/performance level at the 

midpoint and at the end of that time 

period. The term ‘‘performance period’’ 

applies to all proposed measures in this 

Part, except the measures proposed for 

the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) in Subpart B. Each 

performance period covers a 4-year 

duration beginning on a specified date 

(provided in § 490.105). 

Target means a quantifiable level of 

performance or condition, expressed as 

a value for the measure, to be achieved 

within a time period required by 

FHWA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

§ 490.103 Data requirements. 

(a) In general. Unless otherwise noted 

below, the data requirements in this 

section applies to the measures 

identified in Subparts B–C. Additional 

data requirements for specific 

performance management measures are 

identified in 23 CFRs— 

(1) 490.309 for the condition of 

pavements on the Interstate System; 

(2) 490.309 for the condition of 

pavements on the non-Interstate NHS; 

(3) 490.409 for the condition of 

bridges on the NHS; 

(4) [Reserved]. 

(b) Urbanized area data. The State 

DOTs shall submit urbanized area data, 

including boundaries of urbanized 

areas, in accordance with the HPMS 

Field Manual for the purpose of the 

additional targets for urbanized and 

non-urbanized areas in § 490.105(e) and 

IRI rating determination in 

§ 490.313(b)(1). The boundaries of 

urbanized areas shall be identified 

based on the most recent U.S. Decennial 

Census, unless FHWA approves 

adjustments to the urbanized area as 

provided by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34), and 

these adjustments are submitted to 

HPMS, available at the time when the 

State DOT Baseline Performance Period 

Report is due to FHWA. 

(c) [Reserved]. 

(d) National Highway System data. 

The State DOTs shall document and 

submit the extent of the NHS in 

accordance with the HPMS Field 

Manual. 

§ 490.105 Establishment of performance 

targets. 

(a) In general. State Departments of 

Transportation (State DOTs) shall 

establish performance targets for all 

measures specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section for respective target scope 

identified in paragraph (d) with the 

requirements specified in paragraph (e) 

of this section, and the Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) shall 

establish performance targets for all 

measures specified in paragraph (c) for 

respective target scope identified in 

paragraph (d) of this section with the 

requirements specified in paragraph (f) 

of this section. 

(b) Highway Safety Improvement 

Program measures. State DOTs and 

MPOs shall establish performance 

targets for the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) measures 

in accordance with § 490.209. 

(c) Applicable measures. State DOTs 

and MPOs that include, within their 

respective geographic boundaries, any 

portion of the applicable transportation 

network shall establish performance 

targets for the performance measures 

identified in 23 CFRs— 

(1) 490.307(a)(1) and (2) for the 

condition of pavements on the Interstate 

System; 

(2) 490.307(a)(3) and (4) for the 

condition of pavements on the National 

Highway System (NHS) (excluding the 

Interstate); and 

(3) 490.407(c)(1) and (2) for the 

condition of bridges on the NHS. 

(d) Target scope. Targets established 

by the State DOT and MPO shall, 

regardless of ownership, represent the 

transportation network, including 

bridges that cross State borders, that are 

applicable to the measures as specified 

in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2). 

(1) State DOTs and MPOs shall 

establish Statewide and metropolitan 

planning areawide targets, respectively, 

that represent the condition/

performance of the transportation 

network that is applicable to the 

measure, as specified in 23 CFR— 

(i) 490.303 for the condition of 

pavements on the Interstate System; 

(ii) 490.303 for the condition of 

pavements on the non-Interstate NHS; 

and 

(iii) 490.403 for the condition of 

bridges on the NHS. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(3) For the purpose of target 

establishment in this section, reporting 

targets and progress evaluation in 

§ 490.107 and significant progress 

determination in § 490.109, State DOTs 

shall declare and describe the NHS 

limits and urbanized area boundaries 

within the State boundary in the 

Baseline Performance Period Report 

required by § 490.107(b)(1). Any 

changes in NHS limits or urbanized area 

boundaries during a performance period 

would not be accounted for until the 

following performance period. 

(e) State DOT target setting. State 

DOTs shall establish targets for each of 

the performance measures identified in 

paragraph (c) of this section for 

respective target scope identified in 

paragraph (d) of this section as follows: 

(1) Schedule. State DOTs shall 

establish targets not later than 1 year of 

the effective date of this rule and for 

each performance period thereafter, in a 

manner that allows for the time needed 

to meet the requirements specified in 

this section and so that the final targets 

are submitted to FHWA by the due date 

provided in § 490.107(b). 

(2) Coordination. State DOTs shall 

coordinate with relevant MPOs on the 

selection of targets in accordance with 

23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure 

consistency, to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

(3) Additional targets for urbanized 

and non-urbanized areas. In addition to 

statewide targets, described in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, State 

DOTs may, as appropriate, for each 

statewide target establish additional 

targets for portions of the State. 

(i) A State DOT shall declare and 

describe in the Baseline Performance 

Period Report required by 

§ 490.107(b)(1) the boundaries used to 

establish each additional target. Any 

changes in boundaries during a 

performance period would not be 

accounted for until the following 

performance period. 

(ii) State DOTs may select any number 

and combination of urbanized area 

boundaries and may also select a nonurbanized area boundary for the 

establishment of additional targets. 

(iii) The boundaries used by the State 

DOT for additional targets shall be 

contained within the geographic 

boundary of the State and available to 

the FHWA. 

(iv) State DOTs shall evaluate 

separately the progress of each 

additional target and report that 

progress as required under 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B). 

(4) Time horizon for targets. State 

DOTs shall establish targets for a 

performance period as follows: 

(i) The performance period will begin 

on: 

(A) January 1 of the year in which the 

Baseline Performance Period Report is 

due to FHWA and will extend for a 

duration of 4 years for the measures in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section; and 

(B) [Reserved]. 

(ii) The midpoint of a performance 

period will occur 2 years after the 

beginning of a performance period 

described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this 

section. 

(iii) State DOTs shall establish 2-year 

targets that reflect the anticipated 

condition/performance level at the 

midpoint of each performance period. 

(iv) State DOTs shall establish 4-year 

targets that reflect the anticipated 

condition/performance level at the end 

of each performance period. 

(5) Reporting. State DOTs shall report 

2-year targets, 4-year targets, the basis 

for each established target, progress 

made toward the achievement of targets, 

and other requirements to FHWA in 

accordance with § 490.107, and the 

State DOTs shall provide relevant 

MPO(s) targets to FHWA, upon request, 

each time the relevant MPOs establish 

or adjust MPO targets, as described in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(6) Target adjustment. State DOTs 

may adjust an established 4-year target 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 383 

in the Mid Performance Period Progress 

Report, as described in § 490.107(b)(2). 

(7) Phase-in of new requirements for 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures. The following requirements 

apply only to the first performance 

period and the measures in 

§ 490.307(a)(1) and (2): 

(i) State DOTs shall establish their 4- 

year targets, required under paragraph 

(e)(4)(iv) of this section, and report these 

targets in their Baseline Performance 

Period Report, required under 

§ 490.107(b)(1); 

(ii) State DOTs shall not report 2-year 

targets, described in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) 

of this section, and baseline condition/ 

performance in their Baseline 

Performance Period Report; and 

(iii) State DOTs shall update the 

baseline condition/performance in their 

Baseline Performance Period Report, 

with the 2-year condition/performance 

in their Mid Performance Period 

Progress Report, described in 

§ 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). State DOTs may 

also adjust their 4-year targets, as 

appropriate. 

(f) MPO target setting. The MPOs shall 

establish targets for each of the 

performance measures identified in 

paragraph (c) of this section for 

respective target scope identified in 

paragraph (d) of this section as follows: 

(1) Schedule. The MPOs shall 

establish targets no later than 180 days 

after the respective State DOT(s) 

establishes their targets, described in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

(i) The MPOs shall establish 4-year 

targets, described in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) 

of this section, for all applicable 

measures, described in paragraphs (c)– 

(d) of this section. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(2) Coordination. The MPOs shall 

coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) 

on the selection of targets in accordance 

with 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) to 

ensure consistency, to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

(3) Time horizon for targets. The 

MPOs shall establish 4-year targets that 

reflect the anticipated condition/

performance level at the end of each 

performance period, described in 

paragraph (e)(4) of this section. The 

MPOs are not required to establish 2- 

year targets. 

(4) Target establishment options. The 

MPOs shall establish targets by either: 

(i) Agreeing to plan and program 

projects so that they contribute toward 

the accomplishment of the relevant 

State DOT targets; or 

(ii) Committing to quantifiable targets 

for their metropolitan planning area. 

(5) [Reserved]. 

(6) [Reserved]. 

(7) MPO response to State DOT target 

adjustment. If the State DOT adjusts a 

4-year target in the State DOT’s Mid 

Performance Period Progress Report and 

if, for this respective target, the MPO 

established a target by supporting the 

State DOT target as allowed under 

paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, then 

the MPO shall, within 180 days, report 

to the State DOT whether they will 

either: 

(i) Agree to plan a program of projects 

so that they contribute to the adjusted 

State DOT target; or 

(ii) Commit to a new quantifiable 

target for its metropolitan planning area. 

(8) Target adjustment.— If the MPO 

establishes its target by committing to a 

quantifiable target, described in 

paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this section, then 

the MPOs may adjust its target(s) in a 

manner that is agreed upon and 

documented in the metropolitan 

planning agreement in accordance with 

part 450 of this chapter. 

(9) Reporting.—The MPOs shall report 

targets and progress toward the 

achievement of their targets as specified 

in § 490.107(c). After the MPOs 

establish or adjust their targets, the 

relevant State DOT(s) must be able to 

provide these targets to FHWA, upon 

request. 

§ 490.107 Reporting on performance 

targets. 

(a) In general. All State DOTs and 

MPOs shall report the information 

specified in this section for the targets 

required in § 490.105. 

(1) All State DOTs and MPOs shall 

report in accordance with the schedule 

and content requirements under 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 

respectively. 

(2) For the measures identified in 

§ 490.207(a), all State DOTs and MPO 

shall report on performance in 

accordance with § 490.213. 

(3) State DOTs shall report using an 

electronic template provided by FHWA. 

(b) State Biennial Performance 

Report. State DOTs shall report to 

FHWA baseline condition/performance 

at the beginning of a performance period 

and progress achievement at both the 

midpoint and end of a performance 

period. State DOTs shall report at an 

ongoing 2-year frequency as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Baseline Performance Period 

Report— (i) Schedule. State DOTs shall 

submit a Baseline Performance Period 

Report to FHWA by October 1 of the 

first year in a performance period. State 

DOTs shall submit their first Baseline 

Performance Period Report to FHWA by 

October 1, 2016, and subsequent 

Baseline Performance Period Reports to 

FHWA by October 1 every 4 years 

thereafter. 

(ii) Content. The State DOT shall 

report the following information in each 

Baseline Performance Period Report: 

(A) Targets. Two-year and 4-year 

targets for the performance period, as 

required in § 490.105(e), and a 

discussion, to the maximum extent 

practicable, of the basis for each 

established target; 

(B) Baseline condition/performance, 

Baseline condition/performance derived 

from the latest data collected through 

the begin date of the performance period 

specified in § 490.105(e)(4) for each 

target, required under paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section; 

(C) Relationship with other 

performance expectations. A 

discussion, to the maximum extent 

practicable, on how the established 

targets in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this 

section support expectations 

documented in longer range plans, such 

as the State asset management plan 

required by 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and the 

long-range statewide transportation plan 

provided in part 450 of this chapter; 

(D) Urbanized area boundaries and 

population data for targets. For the 

purpose of determining target scope in 

§ 490.105(d), determining IRI rating in 

§ 490.313(b)(1), and establishing 

additional targets for urbanized and 

non-urbanized areas in § 490.105(e)(3), 

State DOTs shall document the 

boundary extent for all applicable 

urbanized areas and the latest Decennial 

Census population data, based on 

information in HPMS; 

(E) NHS limits for targets. For the 

purpose of determining target scope in 

§ 490.105(d), State DOTs shall 

document the extent of the NHS, based 

on information in the HPMS. 

(2) Mid Performance Period Progress 

Report—(i) Schedule.—State DOTs shall 

submit a Mid Performance Period 

Progress Report to FHWA by October 1 

of the third year in a performance 

period. State DOTs shall submit their 

first Mid Performance Period Progress 

Report to FHWA by October 1, 2018, 

and subsequent Mid Performance Period 

Progress Reports to FHWA by October 1 

every 4 years thereafter. 

(ii) Content. The State DOT shall 

report the following information in each 

Mid Performance Period Progress 

Report: 

(A) Two-year condition/performance. 

The actual condition/performance 

derived from the latest data collected 

through the midpoint of the 

performance period, specified in 

§ 490.105(e)(4), for each State DOT 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

384 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

reported target required in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section; 

(B) Two-year progress in achieving 

performance targets. A discussion of the 

State DOT’s progress toward achieving 

each established 2-year target in 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. 

The State DOT shall compare the actual 

2-year condition/performance in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 

within the boundaries and limits 

documented in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(D) 

and (E) of this section, with the 

respective 2-year target and document 

in the discussion any reasons for 

differences in the actual and target 

values; 

(C) Investment strategy discussion. A 

discussion on the effectiveness of the 

investment strategies developed and 

documented in the State asset 

management plan for the NHS required 

under 23 U.S.C. 119(e); 

(D) [Reserved]; 

(E) Target adjustment discussion. 

When applicable, a State DOT may 

submit an adjusted 4-year target to 

replace an established 4-year target in 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. If 

the State DOT adjusts its target, it shall 

include a discussion on the basis for the 

adjustment and how the adjusted target 

supports expectations documented in 

longer range plans, such as the State 

asset management plan and the longrange statewide transportation plan. The 

State DOT may only adjust a 4-year 

target at the midpoint and by reporting 

the change in the Mid Performance 

Period Progress Report. 

(F) Two-year significant progress 

discussion for the National Highway 

Performance Program (NHPP) targets. 

State DOTs shall discuss the progress 

they have made toward the achievement 

of all 2-year targets established for the 

NHPP measures in § 490.105(c)(1) 

through (3). This discussion should 

document a summary of prior 

accomplishments and planned activities 

that will be conducted during the 

remainder of the Performance Period to 

make significant progress toward that 

achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP 

measures; 

(G) Extenuating Circumstances 

discussion on NHPP 2-year targets. 

When applicable, a State DOT may 

include a discussion on the extenuating 

circumstance(s), described in 

§ 490.109(e)(5), beyond the State DOT’s 

control that prevented the State DOT 

from making 2-year significant progress 

toward achieving NHPP target(s) in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) of this section; 

and 

(H) NHPP Target Achievement 

Discussion. If FHWA determines that a 

State DOT has not made significant 

progress toward the achievement of 

NHPP targets in two consecutive 

biennial FHWA determinations, then 

the State DOT shall include a 

description of the actions they will 

undertake to better achieve NHPP 

targets as required under § 490.109(f). If 

FHWA determines under § 490.109(e) 

that the State DOT has achieved 

significant progress, then the State DOT 

does not need to include this 

description. 

(3) Full Performance Period Progress 

Report—(i) Schedule.—State DOTs shall 

submit a progress report on the full 

performance period to FHWA by 

October 1 of the first year following the 

reference performance period. State 

DOTs shall submit their first Full 

Performance Period Progress Report to 

FHWA by October 1, 2020, and 

subsequent Full Performance Period 

Progress Reports to FHWA by October 1 

every 4 years thereafter. 

(ii) Content. The State DOT shall 

report the following information for 

each Full Performance Period Progress 

Report: 

(A) Four-year condition/performance. 

The actual condition/performance 

derived from the latest data collected 

through the end of the Performance 

Period, specified in § 490.105(e)(4), for 

each State DOT reported target required 

in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section; 

(B) Four-year progress in achieving 

performance targets. A discussion of 

State DOT’s progress made toward 

achieving each established 4-year target 

in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (E) of this 

section, when applicable. The State 

DOT shall compare the actual 4-year 

condition/performance in paragraph 

(b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, within the 

boundaries and limits documented in 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E) of this 

section, with the respective 4-year target 

and document in the discussion any 

reasons for differences in the actual and 

target values; 

(C) Investment strategy discussion. A 

discussion on the effectiveness of the 

investment strategies developed and 

documented in the State asset 

management plan for the NHS required 

under 23 U.S.C. 119(e); 

(D) [Reserved]; 

(E) Four-year significant progress 

evaluation for NHPP targets.—State 

DOTs shall discuss the progress they 

have made toward the achievement of 

all 4-year targets established for the 

NHPP measures in § 490.105(c)(1) 

through (3). This discussion shall 

include a summary of accomplishments 

achieved during the Performance Period 

to demonstrate whether the State DOT 

has made significant progress toward 

achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP 

measures. 

(F) Extenuating circumstances 

discussion on NHPP targets. When 

applicable, a State DOT may include 

discussion on the extenuating 

circumstance(s), described in 

§ 490.109(e)(5), beyond the State DOT’s 

control that prevented the State DOT 

from making a 4-year significant 

progress toward achieving NHPP targets, 

described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E) of 

this section; and 

(G) NHPP target achievement 

discussion. If FHWA determines that a 

State DOT has not made significant 

progress toward the achievement of 

NHPP targets in two consecutive 

biennial FHWA determinations, then 

the State DOT shall include a 

description of the actions they will 

undertake to better achieve NHPP 

targets as required under § 490.109(f). If 

FHWA determines in § 490.109(e) that 

the State DOT has achieved significant 

progress, then the State DOT does not 

need to include this description. 

(c) MPO report. MPOs shall establish 

targets in accordance with § 490.105 and 

report targets and progress toward the 

achievement of their targets in a manner 

that is consistent with the following: 

(1) The MPOs shall report their 

established targets to their respective 

State DOT in a manner that is agreed 

upon by both parties and documented 

in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement 

in accordance with part 450 of this 

chapter. 

(2) The MPOs shall report baseline 

condition/performance and progress 

toward the achievement of their targets 

in the system performance report in the 

metropolitan transportation plan in 

accordance with part 450 of this 

chapter. 

§ 490.109 Assessing significant progress 

toward achieving the performance targets 

for the National Highway Performance 

Program. 

(a) In general. The FHWA will assess 

each of the State DOT targets separately 

for the NHPP measures specified in 

§ 490.105(c)(1) through (3) to determine 

the significant progress made toward the 

achievement of those targets. 

(b) Frequency. The FHWA will 

determine whether a State DOT has or 

has not made significant progress 

toward the achievement of NHPP targets 

as described in paragraph (e) of this 

section at the midpoint and the end of 

each performance period. 

(c) Schedule. The FHWA will 

determine significant progress toward 

the achievement of a State DOT’s NHPP 

targets after the State DOT submits the 

Mid Performance Period Progress Report 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 385 

for progress toward the achievement of 

2-year targets, and again after the State 

DOT submits the Full Performance 

Period Progress Report for progress 

toward the achievement of 4-year 

targets. The FHWA will notify State 

DOTs of the outcome of the 

determination of the State DOT’s ability 

to make significant progress toward the 

achievement of its NHPP targets. 

(d) Source of data/information. The 

FHWA will use the following sources of 

information to assess NHPP condition 

and performance progress: 

(1) Data contained within the HPMS 

on June 15 of the year in which the 

significant progress determination is 

made that represents conditions from 

the prior year for targets established for 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures, as specified in 

§ 490.105(c)(1); 

(2) Data contained within the HPMS 

on August 15 of the year in which the 

significant progress determination is 

made that represents conditions from 

the prior year for targets established for 

non-Interstate NHS pavement condition 

measures, as specified in 

§ 490.105(c)(2); 

(3) The most recently available data 

contained within the NBI as of June 15 

of the year in which the significant 

progress determination is made for 

targets established for NHS bridge 

condition measures, as specified in 

§ 490.105(c)(3); and 

(4) The urbanized area boundary and 

NHS limit data in the HPMS as 

documented in the Baseline Period 

Performance Report specified in 

§ 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E). 

(e) Significant progress determination 

for individual NHPP targets—(1) In 

general. The FHWA will biennially 

assess whether the State DOT has 

achieved or made significant progress 

towards each target established by the 

State DOT for the NHPP measures 

described in § 490.105(c)(1) and (3). The 

FHWA will assess the significant 

progress of each statewide target 

separately using the condition/

performance data/information sources 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section. The FHWA will not assess the 

progress achieved for any additional 

targets a State DOT may establish under 

§ 490.105(e)(3). 

(2) Significant Progress toward 

individual NHPP Targets. The FHWA 

will determine that a State DOT has 

made significant progress toward the 

achievement of each 2-year or 4-year 

NHPP target if either: 

(i) The actual condition/performance 

level is better than the baseline 

condition/performance reported in the 

State DOT Baseline Performance Period 

Report; or 

(ii) The actual condition/performance 

level is equal to or better than the 

established target. 

(3) Phase-in of new requirements for 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures. The following requirements 

shall only apply to the first performance 

period and the Interstate System 

pavement condition targets, described 

in § 490.105(e)(7): 

(i) At the midpoint of the first 

performance period, FHWA will not 

make a determination of significant 

progress toward the achievement of 2- 

year targets for Interstate System 

pavement condition measures. 

(ii) The FHWA will classify the 

assessment of progress toward the 

achievement of targets in paragraph 

(e)(3)(i) of this section as ‘‘progress not 

determined’’ so that they will be 

excluded from the requirement under 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section. 

(4) Insufficient data and/or 

information. If a State DOT does not 

provide sufficient data and/or 

information, required under paragraph 

(d) of this section and § 490.107, 

necessary for FHWA to make significant 

progress determination for each NHPP 

target, FHWA will determine that the 

State DOT has not made significant 

progress toward the achievement of the 

applicable NHPP target(s). 

(5) Extenuating circumstances. The 

FHWA will consider extenuating 

circumstances documented by the State 

DOT in the assessment of progress 

toward the achievement of NHPP targets 

in the relevant State Biennial 

Performance Report, provided in 

§ 490.107. 

(i) The FHWA will classify the 

assessment of progress toward the 

achievement of an individual 2-year or 

4-year target as ‘‘progress not 

determined’’ if the State DOT has 

provided an explanation of the 

extenuating circumstances beyond the 

control of the State DOT that prevented 

it from making significant progress 

toward the achievement of a 2-year or 4- 

year target and the State DOT has 

quantified the impacts on the condition/ 

performance that resulted from the 

circumstances, which include: 

(A) Natural or man-made disasters 

that caused delay in NHPP project 

delivery, extenuating delay in data 

collection, and/or damage/loss of data 

system; 

(B) Sudden discontinuation of Federal 

Government furnished data due to 

natural and man-made disasters or lack 

of funding; and/or 

(C) New law and/or regulation 

directing State DOTs to change metric 

and/or measure calculation. 

(ii) If the State DOT’s explanation, 

described in paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this 

section, is accepted by FHWA, FHWA 

will classify the progress towards 

achieving the relevant NHPP target(s) as 

‘‘progress not determined,’’ and those 

targets will be excluded from the 

requirement in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section. 

(f) Performance achievement. If 

FHWA determines that a State DOT has 

not made significant progress towards 

the achievement of NHPP targets in two 

consecutive FHWA determinations, 

then the State DOT shall include in its 

next Biennial Performance Report a 

description of the actions the State DOT 

will undertake to achieve the targets 

related to the measure in which 

significant progress was not achieved as 

follows: 

(1) If significant progress is not made 

for either target established for the 

Interstate System pavement condition 

measures, § 490.307(a)(1) and (2), then 

the State DOT shall document the 

actions they will take to improve 

Interstate Pavement conditions; 

(2) If significant progress is not made 

for either target established for the NonInterstate System pavement condition 

measures, § 490.307(a)(3) and (4), then 

the State DOT shall document the 

actions they will take to improve NonInterstate Pavement conditions. 

(3) If significant progress is not made 

for either target established for the NHS 

bridge condition measures, 

§ 490.407(c)(1) and (2), then the State 

DOT shall document the actions they 

will take to improve NHS bridge 

conditions. 

(4) [Reserved]. 

(5) [Reserved]. 

(6) The State DOT should, within 6 

months of the significant progress 

determination and in a format that can 

be made available to FHWA, document 

the information specified in this 

paragraph to ensure actions are being 

taken to improve progress. 

(7) [Reserved]. 

§ 490.111 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

FHWA must publish a notice of change 

in the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection at the Federal Highway 

Administration, Office of Highway 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Policy Information (202–366–4631) and 

is available from the sources listed 

below. It is also available for inspection 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_

register/code_of_federal_regulations/

ibr_locations.html. 

(b) The Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

www.fhwa.dot.gov. 

(1) Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) Field Manual, IBR 

approved for subpart A though C. 

(2) Recording and Coding Guide for 

the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of 

the Nation’s Bridges, Report No. 

FHWA–PD–96–001, December 1995 and 

errata, IBR approved for subpart D. 

(c) The American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials, 444 

North Capitol Street NW., Suite 249, 

Washington, DC 20001, (202) 624–5800, 

www.transportation.org. 

(1) AASHTO Standard M328–14, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Equipment Specification for Inertial 

Profiler, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 

AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(2) AASHTO Standard R57–14, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling 

Systems, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 

AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(3) AASHTO Standard R55–10 (2013), 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Quantifying Cracks in 

Asphalt Pavement Surface, 2014, 34th/ 

2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606– 

4, IBR approved for subpart C. 

(4) AASHTO Standard PP67–14, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Quantifying Cracks in 

Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from 

Collected Images Utilizing Automated 

Methods, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 

AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(5) AASHTO Standard PP68–14, 

Standard Specification for Collecting 

Images of Pavement Surfaces for 

Distress Detection, 2014, 34th/2014 

Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(6) AASHTO Standard R48–10 (2003), 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Determining Rut Depth in 

Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 

AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(7) AASHTO Standard PP69–14, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Determining Pavement 

Deformation Parameters and Cross 

Slope from Collected Transverse 

Profiles, 2013, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 

AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(8) AASHTO Standard PP70–14, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Collection the Transverse 

Pavement Profile, 2014, 34th/2014 

Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(9) AASHTO Standard R36–13, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Evaluating Faulting of 

Concrete Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014 

Edition, AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

(10) AASHTO Standard R43–13, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Quantifying Roughness of 

Pavement, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 

AASHTO, 1–56051–606–4, IBR 

approved for subpart C. 

■ 4. Add subpart C to read as follows: 

Subpart C—National Performance 

Management Measures for the Assessing 

Pavement Condition 

Sec. 

490.301 Purpose. 

490.303 Applicability. 

490.305 Definitions. 

490.307 National Performance Management 

Measures for Assessing Pavement 

Condition. 

490.309 Data requirements. 

490.311 Calculation of Pavement Metrics. 

490.313 Calculation of Performance 

Management Measures. 

490.315 Establishment of minimum level 

for condition of Pavements. 

490.317 Penalties for not maintaining 

minimum Interstate System pavement 

condition. 

490.319 Other requirements. 

Subpart C—National Performance 

Management Measures for the 

Assessing Pavement Condition 

§ 490.301 Purpose. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

implement the following statutory 

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3) to: 

(a) Establish measures for States and 

MPOs to assess the condition of 

pavements on the Interstate System; 

(b) Establish measures for States and 

MPOs to assess the condition of 

pavements on the NHS (excluding the 

Interstate); 

(c) Establish minimum levels for 

pavement condition on the Interstate 

System, only for purposes of carrying 

out 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1); 

(d) Establish data elements that are 

necessary to collect and maintain 

standardized data to carry out a 

performance-based approach; and 

(e) Consider regional differences in 

establishing the minimum levels for 

pavement conditions on the Interstate 

System. 

§ 490.303 Applicability. 

The performance measures in this 

subpart are applicable to the mainline 

highways on the Interstate System and 

on the non-Interstate NHS. 

§ 490.305 Definitions. 

The following definitions are only 

applicable to this subpart, unless 

otherwise provided: 

Asphalt pavements means pavements 

where the top-most surface is 

constructed with asphalt materials. 

These pavements are coded in the 

HPMS as having any one of the 

following Surface Types: 

Code Surface_type 

2 ....... Bituminous. 

6 ....... Asphalt-Concrete (AC) Overlay over 

Existing AC Pavement. 

7 ....... AC Overlay over Existing Jointed 

Concrete Pavement. 

8 ....... AC (Bituminous Overlay over Existing CRCP). 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete 

Pavements (CRCP) means pavements 

where the top-most surface is 

constructed of reinforced Portland 

cement concrete with no joints. These 

pavements are coded in the HPMS as 

having the following Surface Type: 

Code Surface_type 

5 ....... CRCP—Continuously Reinforced 

Concrete Pavement. 

Cracking means an unintentional 

break in the continuous surface of a 

pavement. Cracking percent means the 

percentage of pavement surface 

exhibiting cracking as follows: 

(1) For Asphalt pavements, 

Cracking_Percent is the percentage of 

the area of the pavement section, 

exhibiting visible cracking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 387 

(2) For Jointed Concrete Pavements, 

Cracking_Percent is the percentage of 

concrete slabs exhibiting cracking; 

(3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent is 

the percentage of pavement surface with 

longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts, 

spalling or other visible defects. 

Faulting means a vertical 

misalignment of pavement joints in 

Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. 

International Roughness Index (IRI) 

means a statistic used to estimate the 

amount of roughness in a measured 

longitudinal profile. The IRI is 

computed from a single longitudinal 

profile using a quarter-car simulation, as 

described in the report: ‘‘On the 

Calculation of IRI from Longitudinal 

Road Profile’’ (Sayers, M.W., 

Transportation Research Board 1501, 

Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC 1995). 

Jointed concrete pavements means 

pavements where the top-most surface 

is constructed of Portland cement 

concrete with joints. It may be 

constructed of either reinforced or 

unreinforced (plain) concrete. It is 

coded in the HPMS as having any one 

of the following Surface Types: 

Code Surface_type 

3 ....... Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement. 

4 ....... Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement. 

9 ....... Unbonded Jointed Concrete Overlay 

on PCC Pavement. 

10 ..... Bonded PCC Overlay on PCC Pavement. 

11 ..... Other (includes ‘‘whitetopping’’). 

Pavement means any hard surfaced 

travel lanes of any highway. 

Pavement Surface Rating (PSR) means 

an observation based system formerly 

used to rate pavements. It is not to be 

used to measure or rate NHS pavement 

conditions. 

Punchout means a distress specific to 

CRCP described as the area between two 

closely spaced transverse cracks and 

between a short longitudinal crack and 

the edge of the pavement (or a 

longitudinal joint) that is breaking up, 

spalling, or faulting. 

Rutting means longitudinal surface 

depressions in the pavement derived 

from measurements of a profile 

transverse to the path of travel on a 

highway lane. It may have associated 

transverse displacement. 

Sampling as applied to pavements, 

means measuring pavement conditions 

on a short section of pavement as a 

statistical representation for the entire 

section. Sampling is not to be used to 

measure or rate non-Interstate NHS 

pavement conditions after January 1, 

2018. Sampling is not permitted on the 

Interstate System. 

§ 490.307 National performance 

management measures for assessing 

pavement condition. 

(a) To carry out the NHPP, the 

performance measures for States to 

assess pavement condition are: 

(1) Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Good condition; 

(2) Percentage of pavements of the 

Interstate System in Poor condition; 

(3) Percentage of pavements of the 

non-Interstate NHS in Good condition; 

and 

(4) Percentage of pavements of the 

non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition. 

(b) State DOTs will collect data using 

the methods described in § 490.309 and 

will process this data to calculate 

individual pavement metrics for each 

section of pavement that will be 

reported to FHWA as described in 

§ 490.311. State DOTs and FHWA will 

use the reported pavement metrics to 

compute an overall performance of 

Good, Fair, or Poor, for each section of 

pavement as described in § 490.313. 

§ 490.309 Data requirements. 

(a) The performance measures 

identified in § 490.307 are to be 

computed using methods in § 490.313 

from the four condition metrics and 

three inventory data elements contained 

within the HPMS that shall be collected 

and reported following the HPMS Field 

Manual, which is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart (see 

§ 490.111). The four condition metrics 

include: IRI, rutting, faulting, and 

Cracking_Percent. The three data 

elements include: Through Lanes, 

Surface Type, and Structure Type. 

(b) State DOTs shall collect data in 

accordance with the following relevant 

HPMS requirements to report IRI, 

rutting (asphalt pavements), faulting 

(jointed concrete pavements), and 

Cracking Percent. 

(1) For the Interstate System the 

following shall apply for all the 

pavement condition metrics: 

(i) State DOTs shall collect data— 

(A) From the full extent of the 

mainline highway; 

(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one 

consistent lane for all data if the 

rightmost travel lane is not accessible; 

(C) Continuously collected in a 

manner that will allow for reporting in 

uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 

feet); shorter sections are permitted only 

at the beginning of a route, end of a 

route, or other locations where a section 

length of 0.1 mile is not achievable; 

sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in 

length; 

(D) In both directions of travel; and 

(E) On an annual frequency. 

(ii) Estimating conditions from data 

samples of the full extent of the 

mainline highway is not permitted. 

(iii) Pavement condition data shall be 

collected separately for each direction of 

the Interstate System. Averaging across 

directions is not permitted. 

(2) For the non-Interstate NHS the 

following shall apply: 

(i) For the IRI metric, State DOTs shall 

collect and report data: 

(A) From the full extent of the 

mainline highway; 

(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one 

consistent lane for all data if the 

rightmost travel lane is not accessible; 

(C) Continuously collected in a 

manner that will allow for reporting in 

uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 

feet); shorter sections are permitted only 

at the beginning of a route, end of a 

route, or other locations where a section 

length of 0.1 mile is not achievable; 

sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in 

length; 

(D) In one direction of travel; and 

(E) On a biennial frequency. 

(F) Estimating conditions from data 

samples of the full extent of the 

mainline will not be permitted. 

(ii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting 

and faulting metrics, data collected 

prior to the data collection cycle ending 

December 31, 2019, shall be collected: 

(A) Using sampling methods outlined 

in the HPMS Field Manual 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111); and 

(B) On at least a biennial frequency. 

(iii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting 

and faulting metrics, data collected 

beginning with the data collection cycle 

ending December 31, 2019, shall be in 

accordance with the following: 

(A) On the full extent (no sampling) 

of the mainline highway; 

(B) In the rightmost travel lane or one 

consistent lane for all data if the 

rightmost travel lane is not accessible; 

(C) Continuously collected in a 

manner that will allow for reporting in 

uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 

feet); shorter sections are permitted only 

at the beginning of a route, end of a 

route, or other locations where a section 

length of 0.1 mile is not achievable; 

sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in 

length; 

(D) In one direction of travel; and 

(E) On at least a biennial frequency. 

(F) Estimating conditions from data 

samples of the full extent of the 

mainline highway will not be permitted. 

(3) Data collection methods for each 

of the condition metrics shall conform 

to the following: 

(i) The device to collect data needed 

to calculate the IRI metric shall be in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with American Association 

of State Highway Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) Standard M328–14, 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Equipment Specification for Inertial 

Profiler (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111). 

(ii) The method to collect data needed 

to calculate the IRI metric shall be in 

accordance with AASHTO Standard 

R57–14, Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling 

Systems (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111). 

(iii) The method to collect data 

needed to determine the 

Cracking_Percent metric for all 

pavement types except CRCP shall be 

either: 

(A) Manual, in accordance with 

AASHTO Standard R55–10 (2013), 

Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Quantifying Cracks in 

Asphalt Pavement Surface (incorporated 

by reference, see § 490.111); or 

(B) Automated, in accordance with 

AASHTO Standards PP67–14, Standard 

Specification for Transportation 

Materials and Methods of Sampling and 

Testing, Standard Practice for 

Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt 

Pavement Surfaces from Collected 

Images Utilizing Automated Methods 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111), and PP68–14, Standard 

Specification for Collecting Images of 

Pavement Surfaces for Distress 

Detection (incorporated by reference, 

see § 490.111). 

(iv) For CRCP the method to collect 

the data needed to determine the 

Cracking_Percent metric is described in 

the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated 

by reference, see § 490.111) and 

includes longitudinal cracking and/or 

punchouts, spalling, or other visible 

defects. 

(v) For Asphalt Pavements, the 

method to collect data needed to 

determine the rutting metric shall either 

be: 

(A) A 5-Point Collection of Rutting 

Data method in accordance with 

AASHTO Standard R48–10, Standard 

Specification for Transportation 

Materials and Methods of Sampling and 

Testing, Standard Practice for 

Determining Rut Depth in Pavements 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111); or 

(B) An Automated Transverse Profile 

Data method in accordance with 

AASHTO Standards PP69–14, Standard 

Specification for Transportation 

Materials and Methods of Sampling and 

Testing, Standard Practice for 

Determining Pavement Deformation 

Parameters and Cross Slope from 

Collected Transverse Profiles 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111), and PP70–14, Standard 

Specification for Transportation 

Materials and Methods of Sampling and 

Testing, Standard Practice for Collection 

the Transverse Pavement Profile 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111). 

(vi) For Jointed Concrete Pavements, 

the method to collect data needed to 

determine the faulting metric shall be in 

accordance with AASHTO Standard 

R36–13, Standard Specification for 

Transportation Materials and Methods 

of Sampling and Testing, Standard 

Practice for Evaluating Faulting of 

Concrete Pavements (incorporated by 

reference, see § 490.111). 

(c) State DOTs shall collect data in 

accordance with the following relevant 

HPMS requirements to report Through 

Lanes, Surface Type, and Structure 

Type. 

(1) State DOTs shall collect data: 

(i) For the full extent of the mainline 

highway of the NHS; 

(ii) In both directions of travel for the 

Interstate System and in one direction of 

travel for the non-Interstate NHS; and 

(iii) On at least a biennial frequency. 

(2) Estimating data elements from 

samples of the full extent of the 

mainline highway is not permitted, 

except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. 

§ 490.311 Calculation of pavement metrics. 

(a) The condition metrics and data 

elements needed to calculate the 

pavement performance measures shall 

be calculated in accordance with the 

HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by 

reference, see § 490.111), except as 

noted below. 

(b) State DOTs shall calculate metrics 

in accordance with the following 

relevant HPMS requirements. 

(1) For all pavements, the IRI metric: 

(i) Shall be computed from pavement 

profile data in accordance with 

AASHTO Standard R43–13, Standard 

Specification for Transportation 

Materials and Methods of Sampling and 

Testing, Standard Practice for 

Quantifying Roughness of Pavement, 

2014, 34th/2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1– 

56051–606–4 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 490.111); 

(ii) Shall be reported for all 

pavements as the average value in 

inches per mile for each section; and 

(iii) Shall not be estimated from a PSR 

or other observation-based method. 

(2) For asphalt pavements— 

(i) The Cracking Percent metric shall 

be computed as the percentage of the 

total area containing visible cracks to 

the nearest whole percent in each 

section; and 

(ii) The rutting metric shall be 

computed as the average depth of 

rutting, in inches to the nearest 0.05 

inches, for the section. 

(3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent 

metric shall be computed as the 

percentage of the area of the section to 

the nearest whole percent exhibiting 

longitudinal cracking, punchouts, 

spalling or other visible defects. 

Transverse cracking shall not be 

considered in the Cracking_Percent 

metric. 

(4) For jointed concrete pavements— 

(i) The Cracking Percent metric shall 

be computed as the percentage of slabs 

to the nearest whole percent within the 

section that exhibit cracking; 

(ii) Partial slabs shall contribute to the 

section that contains the majority of the 

slab length; and 

(iii) The faulting metric shall be 

computed as the average height, in 

inches to the nearest 0.05 inch, of 

faulting between pavement slabs for the 

section. 

(c) State DOTs shall report the four 

pavement metrics and three inventory 

data elements listed in § 490.309(a) as 

calculated following the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in 

accordance with the following relevant 

HPMS requirements: 

(1) Metrics and inventory data 

elements shall be reported to the HPMS 

in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile 

(528 feet); shorter sections are permitted 

only at the beginning of a route, end of 

a route, or other locations where a 

section length of 0.1 mile is not 

achievable; and sections shall not 

exceed 0.1 mile in length; 

(2) Each section shall have a single 

value for each of the relevant condition 

metrics and a single value for each of 

the inventory data elements. 

(3) The time and location reference 

shall be reported for each section as 

follows: 

(i) The State Code, Route ID, Begin 

Point, and End Point shall be reported 

as specified in the HPMS field manual 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 490.111) for each of the four condition 

metrics and three inventory data 

elements; 

(ii) The Year Record shall be reported 

as the four digit year for which the data 

represents for each of the four condition 

metrics and three inventory data 

elements; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 389 

(iii) The Value Date shall be reported 

as the month and year of data collection 

for each of the four condition metrics. 

(4) Sections for the four condition 

metrics and three inventory data 

elements shall be reported to the HPMS 

for the Interstate System by April 15 of 

each year for the data collected during 

the previous calendar year. 

(5) Sections for the four condition 

metrics and three inventory data 

elements shall be reported to the HPMS 

for the non-Interstate NHS by June 15 of 

each year for the data collected during 

the previous calendar year. 

§ 490.313 Calculation of performance 

management measures. 

(a) The pavement measures in 

§ 490.307 shall be calculated in 

accordance with this section and used 

by State DOTs and MPOs to carry out 

the pavement condition related 

requirements of this part, and by FHWA 

to make the significant progress and 

minimum condition determinations 

specified in §§ 490.109 and 490.317, 

respectively. 

(b) The performance measure for 

pavements shall be calculated based on 

the data collected in § 490.309 and 

pavement condition metrics computed 

in § 490.311. The performance measure 

for pavements shall be based on three 

condition ratings of Good, Fair, and 

Poor calculated for each pavement 

section. The ratings are determined as 

follows. 

(1) IRI rating shall be determined for 

all pavement types using the following 

criteria: 

(i) If an IRI value of a pavement 

section in a non-urbanized area or 

urbanized area with a population less 

than 1 million is— 

(A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the 

pavement section is Good; 

(B) Between 95 and 170, the IRI rating 

for the pavement section is Fair; and 

(C) Greater than 170, the IRI rating for 

the pavement section is Poor. 

(ii) If an IRI value of a pavement 

section in an urbanized area with a 

population of at least 1 million is— 

(A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the 

pavement section is Good; 

(B) Between 95 and 220, the IRI rating 

for the pavement section is Fair; and 

(C) Greater than 220, the IRI rating for 

the pavement section is Poor. 

(2) Cracking condition shall be 

determined using the following criteria: 

(i) For asphalt and jointed concrete 

pavement sections— 

(A) If the Cracking Percent value of a 

section is less than 5 percent, the 

cracking rating for the pavement section 

is Good; 

(B) If the Cracking Percent value of a 

section is equal to or greater than 5 

percent and less than or equal to 10 

percent the cracking rating for the 

pavement section is Fair; and 

(C) If the Cracking Percent value of a 

section is greater than 10 percent the 

cracking rating for the pavement section 

is Poor. 

(ii) For CRCP sections: 

(A) If the Cracking Percent value of a 

section is less than 5 percent, the 

cracking rating for the pavement section 

is Good; 

(B) If the Cracking Percent value of a 

section is equal to or greater than 5 

percent and less than or equal to 10 

percent, the cracking rating for the 

pavement section is Fair; and 

(C) If the Cracking Percent value of a 

section is greater than 10 percent, the 

cracking rating for the pavement section 

is Poor. 

(3) Rutting or faulting rating shall be 

determined using the following criteria. 

(i) For asphalt pavement: 

(A) If the rutting value of a section is 

less than 0.20 inches, the rutting rating 

for the pavement section is Good; 

(B) If the rutting value of a section is 

equal to or greater than 0.20 inches and 

less than or equal to 0.40 inches, the 

rutting rating for the pavement section 

is Fair; and 

(C) If the rutting value of a section in 

is greater than 0.40 inches, the rutting 

rating for the pavement section is Poor. 

(ii) For jointed concrete pavement: 

(A) If the faulting value of a section 

is less than 0.05 inches, the faulting 

rating for the pavement section is Good; 

(B) If the faulting value of a section is 

equal to or greater than 0.05 inches and 

less than or equal to 0.15 inches, the 

faulting rating for the pavement section 

is Fair; and 

(C) If the faulting value of a section is 

greater than 0.15 inches, the faulting 

rating for the pavement section is Poor. 

(4) Missing sections or sections 

reported to the HPMS with unresolved, 

missing, or invalid data as determined 

on the dates specified in § 490.109(d)(1) 

and (2), shall be addressed as follows: 

(i) Mainline lane-miles that are 

missing sections or represented with 

sections that are missing data or contain 

invalid data as specified in § 490.311(c) 

for any of the four condition metrics 

will be rated as Poor for each respective 

condition metric; and 

(ii) Mainline lane-miles that are 

missing sections or represented with 

sections that are missing data or contain 

invalid data as specified in § 490.311(c) 

for any of the three inventory data 

elements will be rated in overall Poor 

condition. 

(c) The overall condition for asphalt 

and jointed concrete pavement sections 

shall be determined based on the ratings 

for IRI, Cracking Percent, rutting and 

faulting, as described in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section, 

respectively, for each section as follows: 

(1) A pavement section shall be rated 

an overall condition of Good only if the 

section is exhibiting Good ratings for all 

three conditions (IRI, Cracking_Percent, 

and rutting or faulting); 

(2) A pavement section shall be rated 

an overall condition of Poor if two or 

more of the three conditions are 

exhibiting Poor ratings (at least two 

ratings of Poor for IRI, Cracking Percent, 

and rutting or faulting). 

(3) A pavement section shall be rated 

an overall condition of Fair if it does not 

meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) or 

(2) of this section. 

(d) The Overall Condition for CRCP 

sections shall be determined based on 

two ratings of IRI and Cracking_Percent, 

as described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 

of this section, respectively, for each 

section as follows: 

(1) A pavement section shall be rated 

an overall condition of Good only if the 

section is exhibiting Good ratings for 

both conditions (IRI and Cracking 

Percent); 

(2) A pavement section shall be rated 

an overall condition of Poor if it exhibits 

Poor ratings for both conditions (IRI and 

Cracking Percent); 

(3) A pavement section shall be rated 

an overall condition of Fair if it does not 

meet the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) or 

(2) of this section. 

(e) State DOTs shall not be subject to 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for 

Pavements on the non-Interstate NHS 

until after the data collection cycle 

ending December 31, 2019. During this 

transition period, the Overall condition 

for all pavement types on the nonInterstate NHS will be based on IRI 

rating, as described in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section, until the Cracking 

Percent, rutting, and faulting data 

collection requirements are in effect, as 

described in § 490.309(b)(2)(iii). 

(f) The pavement condition measures 

in § 490.307 shall be computed as 

described below. The measures shall be 

used for establishing targets in 

accordance with § 490.105 and reporting 

the conditions of the pavements in the 

biennial performance reporting required 

in § 490.107 as follows: 

(1) Bridges shall be excluded prior to 

computing all pavement condition 

measures by removing the sections 

where the Structure Type is coded as 1. 

(2) For § 490.307(a)(1) the measure for 

Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 

System in Good condition shall be 

computed to the one tenth of a percent 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

where: 

Good = total number of mainline highway 

Interstate System sections where the 

overall condition is Good; 

g = a section’s overall condition is 

determined Good per paragraphs (b) or 

(c) of this section; 

t = an Interstate System section; 

Total = total number of mainline highway 

Interstate System sections; 

Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section 

g or t; 

End Point = End Milepost of each section g 

or t; and 

Through_lanes = the number of lanes 

designated for through-traffic 

represented by a section g or t. 

(3) For § 490.307(a)(2) the measure for 

Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 

System in Poor condition shall be 

computed to the one tenth of a percent 

as follows: 

where: 

Poor = total number of mainline highway 

Interstate System sections where the 

overall condition is Poor; 

p = a section’s overall condition is 

determined Poor per paragraphs (b) or (c) 

of this section; 

t = an Interstate System section; 

Total = total number of mainline highway 

Interstate System sections; 

Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section 

p or t; 

End Point = End Milepost of each section p 

or t; and 

Through_lanes = the number of lanes 

designated for through-traffic 

represented by a section p or t. 

(4) For § 490.307(a)(3) the measure for 

Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Good condition shall 

be computed to the one tenth of a 

percent as follows: 

where: 

Good = total number of mainline highway 

non-Interstate NHS sections where the 

overall condition is Good; 

g = a section’s overall condition is 

determined Good per paragraphs (b), (c), 

or (d) of this section; 

t = a non-Interstate NHS section; 

Total = total number of mainline highway 

non-Interstate NHS sections; 

Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section 

g or t; 

End Point = End Milepost of each section g 

or t; and 

Through_lanes = the number of lanes 

designated for through-traffic 

represented by a section g or t. 

(5) For § 490.307(a)(4) the measure for 

Percentage of lane-miles of the nonInterstate NHS in Poor condition shall 

be computed to the one tenth of a 

percent as follows: 

where: 

Poor = total number of mainline highway 

non-Interstate NHS sections where the 

overall condition is Poor; 

p = a section’s overall condition is 

determined Poor per paragraphs (b), (c), 

or (d) of this section; 

t = a non-Interstate NHS section; 

Total = total number of mainline highway 

non-Interstate NHS sections; 

Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section 

p or t; 

End Point = End Milepost of each section p 

or t; and 

Through_lanes = the number of lanes 

designated for through-traffic 

represented by a section p or t. 

§ 490.315 Establishment of minimum level 

for condition of pavements. 

For the purposes of carrying out the 

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1), the 

Percentage of lane-miles of Interstate 

System in Poor condition, as computed 

per § 490.313(f)(3), shall not exceed 5.0 

percent. 

§ 490.317 Penalties for not maintaining 

minimum Interstate System pavement 

condition. 

(a) The FHWA shall compute the 

percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 

System, excluding sections on bridges, 

in Poor Condition, in accordance with 

§ 490.313(f)(3), for each State annually. 

(b) The FHWA shall extract data 

contained within the HPMS on June 15 

that represents conditions from the prior 

calendar year for Interstate System 

pavement conditions to carry out 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) The FHWA shall determine State 

DOT compliance with § 490.315(a) after 

the first full year of data collection for 

the Interstate System following the 

effective date of this rule and each year 

thereafter. 

(d) The FHWA shall determine if a 

State DOT is in compliance with 23 

U.S.C. 119(f)(1) after the second full 

year of data collection for the Interstate 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.020</GPH> EP05JA15.021</GPH> EP05JA15.022</GPH> EP05JA15.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 391 

System following the effective date of 

this rule and each year thereafter based 

on the determination made in paragraph 

(c) of this section for the most recent 2 

years. The FHWA will determine a State 

DOT to be in compliance with 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(1) if the State DOT is determined 

to be in compliance with § 490.315(a) in 

either of the most recent 2 years. 

(e) The FHWA will notify State DOTs 

of their compliance with 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(1) prior to October 1 of the year 

in which the determination was made. 

(f) If FHWA determines through 

conduct of paragraph (d) of this section 

a State DOT to be out of compliance 

with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) then the State 

DOT shall, during the following fiscal 

year: 

(1) Obligate, from the amounts 

apportioned to the State DOT under 23 

U.S.C. 104(b)(1) (for the NHPP), an 

amount that is not less than the amount 

of funds apportioned to the State for 

Federal fiscal year 2009 under the 

Interstate Maintenance program for the 

purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as 

in effect on the day before the date of 

enactment of the MAP–21), except that 

for each year after Federal fiscal year 

2013, the amount required to be 

obligated under this clause shall be 

increased by 2 percent over the amount 

required to be obligated in the previous 

fiscal year; and 

(2) Transfer, from the amounts 

apportioned to the State DOT under 23 

U.S.C. 104(b)(2) (for the Surface 

Transportation Program) (other than 

amounts sub-allocated to metropolitan 

areas and other areas of the State under 

23 U.S.C. 133(d)) to the apportionment 

of the State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 

an amount equal to 10 percent of the 

amount of funds apportioned to the 

State for fiscal year 2009 under the 

Interstate Maintenance program for the 

purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as 

in effect on the day before the date of 

enactment of the MAP–21). 

§ 490.319 Other requirements. 

(a) In accordance with the HPMS 

Field Manual (incorporated by 

reference, see § 490.111), each State 

DOT shall report the following to the 

HPMS no later than April 15 each year: 

(1) The pavement condition metrics 

specified in § 490.311 that are necessary 

to calculate the Interstate System 

condition measures identified in 

§§ 490.307(a)(1) and (2) and; 

(2) the data elements specified in 

§ 490.309(b)(4) for the Interstate System 

(b) In accordance with the HPMS 

Field Manual (incorporated by 

reference, see § 490.111), each State 

DOT shall report to the HPMS no later 

than June 15 each year the pavement 

condition metrics specified in § 490.311 

that are necessary to calculate the nonInterstate NHS condition measures in 

§§ 490.307(a)(3) and (4). 

(c) Each State DOT shall develop and 

utilize a Data Quality Management 

Program, approved by FHWA that 

addresses the quality of all data 

collected, regardless of the method of 

acquisition, to report the pavement 

condition metrics, discussed in 

§ 490.311, and data elements discussed 

in § 490.309(b)(4). 

(1) In a Data Quality Management 

Programs, State DOTs shall include, at 

a minimum, methods and processes for: 

(i) Data collection equipment 

calibration and certification; 

(ii) Certification process for persons 

performing manual data collection; 

(iii) Data quality control measures to 

be conducted before data collection 

begins and periodically during the data 

collection program; 

(iv) Data sampling, review and 

checking processes; and 

(v) Error resolution procedures and 

data acceptance criteria. 

(2) Not later than 1 year after the 

effective date of this regulation, State 

DOTs shall submit their Data Quality 

Management Program to FHWA for 

approval. Once FHWA approves a State 

DOT’s Data Quality Management 

Program, the State DOT shall use that 

Program to collect and report data 

required by §§ 490.309 to 490.311. State 

DOTs also shall submit any proposed 

significant change to the Data Quality 

Management Program to FHWA for 

approval prior to implementing the 

change. 

■ 5. Add subpart D to read as follows: 

Subpart D—National Performance 

Management Measures for Assessing 

Bridge Condition 

Sec. 

490.401 Purpose. 

490.403 Applicability. 

490.405 Definitions. 

490.407 National performance management 

measures for assessing bridge condition. 

490.409 Calculation of National 

performance management measures for 

assessing bridge condition. 

490.411 Establishment of minimum level 

for condition for bridges. 

490.413 Penalties for not maintaining 

bridge condition. 

Subpart D—National Performance 

Management Measures for Assessing 

Bridge Condition 

§ 490.401 Purpose. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

implement the requirements of 23 

U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(III), which 

requires the Secretary of Transportation 

to establish performance measures for 

the purpose of carrying out the NHPP 

and for State DOTs and MPOs to use in 

assessing the condition of bridges on the 

NHS. 

§ 490.403 Applicability. 

The section is only applicable to NHS 

bridges including bridges on ramps 

connecting to the NHS as defined by 23 

U.S.C. 103. 

§ 490.405 Definitions. 

The following definitions are only 

applicable to this subpart, unless 

otherwise provided: 

Bridge as used in this section, is 

defined in 23 CFR 650.305, the National 

Bridge Inspection Standards. 

Structurally deficient as used in 

§§ 490.411 and 490.413 is a 

classification given to a bridge which 

has significant load carrying elements in 

poor or worse condition or the adequacy 

of the waterway opening provided by 

the bridge is determined to be 

insufficient to the point of causing 

overtopping with intolerable traffic 

interruptions. 

§ 490.407 National performance 

management measures for assessing 

bridge condition. 

(a) There are three classifications for 

the purpose of assessing bridge 

condition. They are: 

(1) Percentage of NHS bridges 

classified as in Good condition; 

(2) Percentage of NHS bridges 

classified as in Fair condition; and 

(3) Percentage of NHS bridges 

classified as in Poor condition. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

(c) To carry out the NHPP, two of the 

three classifications are performance 

measures for State DOTs to use to assess 

bridge condition on the NHS. They are: 

(1) Percentage of NHS bridges 

classified as in Good condition; and 

(2) Percentage of NHS bridges 

classified as in Poor condition. 

(d) Determination of Good and Poor 

conditions are described in § 490.409. 

§ 490.409 Calculation of national 

performance management measures for 

assessing bridge condition. 

(a) The bridge measures in § 490.407 

shall be calculated in accordance with 

this section and used by State DOTs and 

MPOs to carry out the bridge condition 

related requirements of this part and by 

FHWA to make the significant progress 

determination specified in § 490.109. 

(b) The condition of bridges on the 

NHS, including bridges on ramps 

connecting to the NHS, shall be 

classified as Good, Fair, or Poor 

following the criteria specified in this 

paragraph. The assignment of a 

classification of Good, Fair, or Poor 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

shall be based on the bridge’s condition 

ratings for NBI Items 58—Deck, 59— 

Superstructure, 60—Substructure, and 

62—Culverts. For the purposes of 

national performance measures under 

the NHPP, the method of assessment to 

determine the classification of a bridge 

will be the minimum of condition rating 

method, i.e., the condition ratings for 

lowest rating of a bridge’s 3 NBI Items, 

58—Deck, 59—Superstructure, and 60— 

Substructure, and will determine the 

classification of a bridge. For culverts, 

the rating of its NBI Item, 62—Culverts, 

will determine its classification. The 

NHS bridges will be classified as Good, 

Fair, or Poor based on the following 

criteria: 

(1) Good: When the lowest rating of 

any of the 3 NBI items for a bridge 

(Items 58—Deck, 59—Superstructure, 

60—Substructure) is 7, 8 or 9, the bridge 

will be classified as Good. When the 

rating of NBI item for a culvert (Item 

62—Culverts) is 7, 8, or 9, the culvert 

will be classified as Good. 

(2) Fair: When the lowest rating of any 

of the 3 NBI items for a bridge is 5 or 

6, the bridge will be classified as Fair. 

When the rating of NBI item for a 

culvert is 5 or 6, the culvert will be 

classified as Fair. 

(3) Poor: When the lowest rating of 

any of the 3 NBI items for a bridge is 

4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, the bridge will be 

classified as Poor. When the rating of 

NBI item for a culvert is 4, 3, 2, 1, or 

0, the culvert will be classified as Poor. 

(c) The bridge measures specified in 

§ 490.407(c) shall be calculated for the 

applicable bridges per paragraph (a) of 

this section that pertain to each target 

established by the State DOT or MPO in 

§ 490.105(e) and (f), respectively, as 

follows: 

(1) For § 490.407(c)(1), the measure 

for the Percentage of bridges classified 

as in Good condition shall be computed 

and reported to the one tenth of a 

percent as follows: 

Where: 

GOOD = total number of the applicable 

bridges, where their condition is Good 

per paragraph (b)(1) of this section; 

g = a bridge determined to be in Good 

condition per paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section; 

Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 

49—Structure Length for every 

applicable bridge; 

Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 

52—Deck Width or value of Item 32 

Approach Roadway Width for culverts 

where the roadway is on a fill [i.e., traffic 

does not directly run on the top slab (or 

wearing surface) of the culvert] and the 

headwalls do not affect the flow of traffic 

for every applicable bridge. 

s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of 

this section; and 

TOTAL = total number of the applicable 

bridges specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(2) For § 490.407(c)(2), the measure 

for the Percentage of bridges classified 

as in Poor condition shall be computed 

and reported to the one tenth of a 

percent as follows: 

Where: 

POOR = total number of the applicable 

bridges, where their condition is Poor 

per paragraph (b)(3) of this section; 

p = a bridge determined to be in Poor 

condition per paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section; 

Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 

49—Structure Length for every 

applicable bridge; 

Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 

52—Deck Width or value of Item 32 

Approach Roadway Width for culverts 

where the roadway is on a fill [i.e., traffic 

does not directly run on the top slab (or 

wearing surface) of the culvert] and the 

headwalls do not affect the flow of traffic 

for every applicable bridge. 

s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of 

this section; and 

TOTAL = total number of the applicable 

bridges specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(d) The measures identified in 

§ 490.407(c) shall be used to establish 

targets in accordance with § 490.105 and 

report targets and conditions described 

in § 490.107. 

(e) The NBI Items included in this 

section are found in the Recording and 

Coding Guide for the Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s 

Bridges, which is incorporated by 

reference (see § 490.111). 

§ 490.411 Establishment of minimum level 

for condition for bridges. 

(a) State DOTs will maintain bridges 

so that the percentage of the deck area 

of bridges classified as Structurally 

Deficient does not exceed 10.0 percent. 

This minimum condition level is 

applicable to bridges on the NHS and 

bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS 

within a State and bridges on the NHS 

that cross a State border. 

(b) For the purposes of carrying out 

this section and § 490.413, a bridge will 

be classified as Structurally Deficient 

when one of its NBI Items, 58—Deck, 

59—Superstructure, 60—Substructure, 

or 62—Culverts, is 4 or less, or when 

one of its NBI Items, 67—Structural 

Evaluation or 71—Waterway Adequacy, 

is 2 or less. 

(c) For all NHS bridges including 

ramps connecting to the NHS and NHS 

bridges that cross a State border, FHWA 

shall calculate a ratio of the total deck 

area of all bridges classified as 

Structurally Deficient to the total deck 

area of all applicable bridges for each 

State. The percentage of deck area of 

bridges classified as Structurally 

Deficient shall be computed by FHWA 

to the one tenth of a percent as follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP05JA15.024</GPH> EP05JA15.025</GPH> EP05JA15.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 393 

Where: 

Structurally Deficient = total number of the 

applicable bridges, where their 

classification is Structurally Deficient 

per this section and § 490.413; 

SD = a bridge classified as Structurally 

Deficient per this section and § 490.413; 

Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 

49—Structure Length for every 

applicable bridge; 

Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 

52—Deck Width or value of Item 32 

Approach Roadway Width for culverts 

where the roadway is on a fill [i.e., traffic 

does not directly run on the top slab (or 

wearing surface) of the culvert] and the 

headwalls do not affect the flow of traffic 

for every applicable bridge. 

s = an applicable bridge per this section and 

§ 490.413; and 

TOTAL = total number of the applicable 

bridges specified in this section and 

§ 490.413. 

(d) The FHWA will annually 

determine the percentage of the deck 

area of NHS bridges classified as 

Structurally Deficient for each State 

DOT and identify State DOTs that do 

not meet the minimum level of 

condition for NHS bridges based on data 

cleared in the NBI as of June 15 of each 

year. The FHWA will notify State DOTs 

of their compliance with 23 U.S.C. 

119(f)(2) prior to October 1 of the year 

in which the determination was made. 

(e) For the purposes of carrying out 

this section, State DOTs will annually 

submit their most current NBI data on 

highway bridges to FHWA no later than 

March 15 of each year. 

(f) The NBI Items included in this 

section are found in the Recording and 

Coding Guide for the Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s 

Bridges, which is incorporated by 

reference (see § 490.111). 

§ 490.413 Penalties for not maintaining 

bridge condition. 

(a) If FHWA determines for the 3-year 

period preceding the date of the 

determination, that more than 10.0 

percent of the total deck area of bridges 

in the State on the NHS is located on 

bridges that have been classified as 

Structurally Deficient, the following 

requirements will apply. 

(1) During the fiscal year following 

the determination, the State DOT shall 

obligate and set aside in an amount 

equal to 50 percent of funds 

apportioned to such State for fiscal year 

2009 to carry out 23 U.S.C. 144 (as in 

effect the day before enactment of MAP– 

21) from amounts apportioned to a State 

for a fiscal year under 23 U.S.C. 

104(b)(1) only for eligible projects on 

bridges on the NHS. 

(2) The set-aside and obligation 

requirement for bridges on the NHS in 

a State in this paragraph (a) for a fiscal 

year shall remain in effect for each 

subsequent fiscal year until such time as 

less than 10 percent of the total deck 

area of bridges in the State on the NHS 

is located on bridges that have been 

classified as Structurally Deficient as 

determined by FHWA. 

(b) The FHWA will make the first 

determination by October 1, 2016, and 

each fiscal year thereafter. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30085 Filed 1–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3