Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/03/28/2014-06681/highway-safety-improvement-program
Timestamp: 2019-01-17 01:13:58
Document Index: 165156279

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 924', 'ART 924', 'art 924', 'art 924', 'art 450', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924', '§\u2009924']

Federal Register :: Highway Safety Improvement Program
A Proposed Rule by the Federal Highway Administration on 03/28/2014
Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2014.
79 FR 17464
17464-17482 (19 pages)
23 CFR 924
Docket No. FHWA-2013-0019
2125-AF56
2014-06681
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.1 Purpose
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.3 Definitions
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.5 Policy
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.7 Program Structure
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.9 Planning
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.11 Implementation
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.13 Evaluation
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.15 Reporting
Discussion of Proposed Addition of Section 924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 924
PART 924—HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-06681 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-06681
The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to propose changes to Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) regulations to address provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) as well as to incorporate clarifications to better explain existing regulatory language. Specifically, this rule proposes to amend DOT's regulations to address MAP-21 provisions that removed the requirement for States to prepare a Transparency Report, removed the High Risk Rural Roads set-aside, and removed the 10 percent flexibility provision for States to use safety funding in accordance with federal law. This rule also proposes to amend DOT's regulations to address a MAP-21 provision that requires DOT to establish a subset of roadway data elements that are useful to the inventory of roadway safety, and to ensure that States adopt and use the subset. Finally, this rule proposes to address MAP-21 provisions that add State Strategic Highway Safety Plan update requirements and require States to develop HSIP performance targets. The proposed changes are intended to clarify the regulation for the development, implementation, and evaluation of highway safety improvement programs that are administered in each State.
Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
Ms. Karen Scurry, Office of Safety, karen.scurry@dot.gov; or William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, william.winne@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may submit or access all comments received by the DOT online through: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.federalregister.gov.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) under section 148, title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) as a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The MAP-21 amends the HSIP by requiring the DOT to establish several new requirements and remove several provisions that were introduced under Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). A revision to 23 CFR 924 is necessary to align with the MAP-21 provisions and clarify existing program requirements.
A key component of this proposal is the requirement for States to collect and use a set of proposed roadway data elements for all public roadways, including local roads. Example proposed data elements include elements to classify and delineate roadway segments (e.g., beginning and end point descriptors), elements to identify roadway physical characteristics (e.g., median type and ramp length), and elements to identify traffic volume. The purpose of this proposal, in addition to satisfying a statutory requirement, is to improve States' ability to estimate expected number of crashes at roadway locations, with the ultimate goal to improve States' allocation of safety resources.
This NPRM proposes to remove all existing references to the High Risk Rural Roads Program, 10 percent flexibility provisions, and transparency reports since MAP-21 eliminated these provisions.
The MAP-21 also requires the DOT to establish the update cycle for Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) [23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(A)], the content and schedule for the HSIP report [23 U.S.C. 148(h)(2)], and a subset of model roadway elements (a.k.a. Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE)) [23 U.S.C. 148(e)(2)(A)]. The NPRM proposes a 5-year SHSP update cycle, consistent with current practice in most States. The DOT proposes States continue to submit their HSIP reports on annual basis, by August 31 each year. In addition to existing reporting requirements and the proposed changes noted above, the DOT proposes that State DOTs document their safety performance targets in their annual HSIP report, and describe progress to achieve those safety performance targets in future HSIP reports. The DOT also proposes States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP reports, consistent with the Office of the Inspector General's recommendations in the recent HSIP Audit.[1] Currently, a Start Printed Page 17465majority of States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP reports. We believe that the proposed roadway data elements are the fundamental set of data elements that an agency would need in order to conduct enhanced safety analyses to improve safety investment decisionmaking through the HSIP. We believe the proposed roadway elements also have the potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP. The FHWA is proposing to require that States collect and use the same fundamental roadway elements that are recommended in the State Safety Data Systems Guidance published December 27, 2012.[2] We explain in more detail later in this proposed rule the reason(s) for proposing each individual roadway data element, but in general some of the elements are needed to address MAP-21 reporting requirements and some are needed in order to conduct improved analyses for predicting crashes. Later in this proposed rule we seek comments on whether we have selected the appropriate subset of roadway data elements in order to implement the statutory requirement and maximize net benefits.
The NRPM also proposes additions to clarify other MAP-21 provisions related to non-infrastructure projects and performance management requirements. The HSIP funds are now eligible for any type of highway safety improvement project (i.e. infrastructure or non-infrastructure). The DOT proposes that agencies should use all other eligible funding programs for non-infrastructure projects, prior to using HSIP funds for these purposes. The DOT also proposes language throughout the NPRM to be consistent with the performance management requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150.
Of the three requirements mandated by MAP-21 (i.e. MIRE FDE, SHSP update cycle, and HSIP Report Content and Schedule) and addressed in this proposed rule, we believe that only the proposal regarding the MIRE FDE would result in additional costs. The SAFETEA-LU and the existing regulation require States to update their SHSP on a regular basis; the proposed rulemaking proposes that States update their SHSP every 5 years. The proposed rulemaking does not change the existing schedule for the HSIP report. The MAP-21 results in only minimal proposed changes to the HSIP report content related to reporting safety performance targets; however, additional costs as a result of this new content are negligible and the removal of the transparency report requirements reduces existing costs. Therefore, FHWA bases its cost-benefit analysis on the MIRE FDE component only and uses the “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” Report [3] for this purpose.
[2013-2029 Analysis period]
Total national costs
Cost of Section 924.17:
Linear Referencing System (LRS) $17,239,277 $17,180,594 $16,895,724 $16,467,622
Initial Data Collection 53,172,638 52,319,704 48,367,784 42,980,809
Roadway Segments 37,941,135 37,332,527 34,512,650 30,668,794
Intersections 8,284,572 8,151,681 7,535,951 6,696,633
Interchange/Ramp locations 832,734 819,376 757,485 673,120
Volume Collection 6,114,197 6,016,120 5,561,698 4,942,262
Maintenance of data system 154,945,661 147,701,120 117,370,098 83,834,343
Management & administration 3,449,812 3,394,474 3,138,075 2,788,571
Total Cost 228,807,387 220,595,892 185,771,683 146,071,346
The cost of data collection for an average State is estimated at $1,362,800 to complete the LRS and initial MIRE FDE collection efforts, $66,600 for management and administration costs,[4] and $2,896,100 for maintenance costs [5] over the analysis period of 2013-2029 (in 2013 U.S. dollars, at a 0.5% discount rate).[6] These estimates are net present value average costs on a per State basis. As such, across the 50 States and the District of Columbia, it is possible that the aggregate cost for LRS and initial data collection would be approximately $69.5 million, and the annual maintenance cost would approach $11.5 million.[7] This equates to approximately $225,000 on average for a State to maintain the data annually.
The MIRE FDE are beneficial because collecting this roadway and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis process would improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. The FHWA did not estimate the benefits of this rule. Instead, FHWA has conducted a break-even analysis. Table 2 shows the reduction in fatalities and injuries due to improvements in safety investment decisionmaking with the use of the MIRE FDE that would be needed for the costs of the data collection to equal the benefits, and for the costs of the data collection to equal half of the benefits. Using the 2012 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,100,000 and $107,438 for an average injury, results in an estimated reduction of 0.38 fatalities and 24.77 injuries per average State over the 2013-2029 analysis period (at a 0.5% discount rate) would be needed to result in a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1:1.[8] To achieve a benefit/cost ratio of 2:1, fatalities would need to be reduced by 0.76 and injuries by 49.54 per average State over the same analysis period.[9]
Number of lives saved/injuries avoided nationally
Benefit/Cost Ratio of 1:1:
# of lives saved (fatalities) 19 19 21 23
# of severe injuries avoided 1246 1263 1353 1517
Benefit/Cost Ratio of 2:1:
# of lives saved (fatalities) 38 39 42 47
# of severe injuries avoided 2493 2527 2706 3034
Based on a preliminary study that found relationships between State's use of roadway inventory data (in combination with their crash data in analyses supporting their safety investment decision making) and the magnitude of States' fatal-crash reduction,[10] and other anecdotal information, we believe that this level of benefit may be achievable.
On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405). Among other things, the law authorizes funds for Federal-aid highways. In Section 1112 of this Act, Congress amended the HSIP of section 148 of title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The HSIP is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. The FHWA proposes to incorporate the MAP-21 amendments, as well as general updates, into 23 CFR Part 924 Highway Safety Improvement Program to provide consistency with 23 U.S.C. 148 and to provide State and local safety partners with clarity on the purpose, definitions, policy, program structure, planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of the HSIP. Specifically, MAP-21 removed the requirement for States to prepare a Transparency Report, removed the High Risk Rural Roads set-aside, and removed the 10 percent flexibility provision for States to use safety funding in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(e). The MAP-21 also adds data system and improvement requirements, State SHSP update requirements, and requirements for States to develop HSIP performance targets. The DOT will address specific requirements related to HSIP performance target requirements through a separate, but concurrent, rulemaking effort.
The MAP-21 requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements, or the MIRE FDE, that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety. Initial consideration of requiring collection of FDEs dates back to a report by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the progress made toward accomplishing the HSIP goals set forth in SAFETEA-LU. In November 2008, the GAO published “Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities” to document their findings. The GAO report recommended that the Secretary of Transportation direct FHWA Administrator to take the following three actions:
Define which roadway inventory data elements—contained in its proposal for a Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements, as appropriate—a State needs to meet Federal requirements for HSIP;
Require States to submit schedules to FHWA for achieving compliance with this requirement.
Following extensive work on accommodating GAO's recommendations, FHWA published, “Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Start Printed Page 17467Safety Improvement Program” [11] on August 1, 2011. As part of addressing GAO's recommendations, FHWA engaged in efforts to obtain public input. The FHWA hosted a peer exchange at the 2009 Asset Management Conference, two Webinars in December 2009, and one listening session at the January 2010 Transportation Research Board meeting to obtain input on possible approaches to address the GAO's recommendations. These sessions were designed to reach local and State transportation officials, as well as professional transportation safety organizations. These sessions were attended by over 150 representatives of Federal, State, and local jurisdictions from across the country, as well as professional organizations. The purpose of these sessions was to gather feedback from stakeholders regarding mandatory roadway inventory elements and scheduling inventory data improvements, and to discuss other approaches from stakeholders regarding the collection and use of data for HSIP. During the Webinars and the listening session, FHWA listened carefully to the comments and concerns expressed by the stakeholders and used that information when developing the August 1, 2011, Guidance Memorandum. The August 1, 2011, guidance memorandum formed the basis for the State Safety Data System guidance published on December 27, 2012.[12]
The proposed regulatory text follows the same format and section titles currently in 23 CFR 924, but FHWA proposes substantive changes to each section. Specifically, FHWA proposes to replace the existing 23 CFR Part 924 with new language in the following sections.
The FHWA proposes to clarify that the purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the HSIP, rather than to set forth policy on the development, implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive HSIP in each State.
The FHWA proposes to remove the following eight definitions, because they would no longer be used in the regulation: “high risk rural road,” “highway-rail grade crossing protective devices,” “integrated interoperable emergency communication equipment,” “interoperable emergency communications system,” “operational improvements,” “safety projects under any other section,” “State,” and “transparency report.”
The FHWA proposes to add to the definition of “public road” that non-Start Printed Page 17468State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands are considered public roads pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(12)(D), (b)(2), (c)(2)(A)(i), (c)(2)(D)(ii) and (d)(1)(B)(viii).
The FHWA proposes to maintain the current definitions without change for “hazard index formula” and “road safety audit.”
In paragraph (a), FHWA proposes minor editorial modifications to explicitly state that the HSIP's objective is to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries, rather than “the occurrence of and potential for fatalities and serious injuries” as written in the existing regulation.
The FHWA proposes to remove the first sentence of paragraph (c) regarding the use of other Federal-aid funds, since this information is repeated in section 924.11 (Implementation) and is better suited for that section. The FHWA also proposes minor edits to the paragraph to provide more accurate references to the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Federal-aid programs, and remove references to the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Equity Bonus funding sources, since these funding programs have been consolidated into other program areas. As stated in the existing regulation, safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the broader project. This provision remains unchanged by the proposed revisions.
In paragraph (a), FHWA proposes to clarify the structure of the HSIP by specifying that the HSIP is to include a SHSP, a Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and a program of highway safety improvement projects (infrastructure and non-infrastructure). Currently, the existing regulation uses the term HSIP in reference to the program under 23 U.S.C. 148 as well as the State's HSIP as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11). The existing program structure does not change; however, this has been a point of confusion so FHWA believes that listing the three main components will help States better understand the program structure.
The FHWA proposes to clarify paragraph (b) by specifying that the HSIP shall include a separate process for planning, implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP components described in section 924.7(a) on all public roads. The proposed revisions would clarify that these processes shall cover all public roads. The FHWA also proposes minor revisions to require that each process be developed in cooperation with the FHWA Division Administrator and in consultation with officials of the various units of local and tribal governments; it further adds that other safety stakeholders should also be consulted, as appropriate. The proposed changes clarify that each State would work with FHWA to develop appropriate processes and would consult with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of those processes. These changes reflect common practices in developing State Transportation Improvement Plans (STIP) under 23 CFR 450.216(b), (c), (d) and (f).” In addition, FHWA proposes to clarify that the processes developed are in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Finally, FHWA proposes to remove the existing last sentence of Start Printed Page 17469the regulation that references what the processes may include, since that language is more appropriate for guidance documents rather than regulation.
The FHWA proposes to reorganize and revise paragraph (a) regarding the HSIP planning process so that it reflects the sequence of actions that States should take in the HSIP planning process. As a result of this reorganization, the HSIP planning process would now include six distinct elements, including a separate element for updates to the SHSP which currently exists under the safety data analysis processes. The FHWA also proposes removing existing item (a)(3)(iii) regarding the High Risk Rural Roads program to reflect the change in legislation. Proposed key revisions to each element of section 924.9(a) are described in the following paragraphs:
(a)(1) The proposed revision would group data as “safety data,” rather than specifying individual data components. The proposed language also would specify that roadway data shall include MIRE FDEs under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(5) and (f)(1) and (2), and railway-highway grade crossing data including all fields from the DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 130. The FHWA includes the use of MIRE FDEs consistent with guidance [13] issued by FHWA on December 27, 2012. The guidance memorandum provides background and guidance information on roadway and traffic data elements that can be used to improve safety investment decisionmaking through the HSIP. The Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0,[14] report defines each roadway element and describes its attributes. The fundamental data elements are a basic set of elements on which an agency would need to conduct enhanced safety analyses regardless of the specific analysis tools used or methods applied. The elements are based on findings in the FHWA report “Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highways Safety Improvement Program (Background Report).” [15] The fundamental data elements have the potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP. Further discussion of the MIRE FDEs is contained below in section 924.17.
(a)(3 [formerly 3(ii)]) The FHWA proposes to specify the SHSP update cycle, as required by MAP-21, and a process for updating the SHSP. The FHWA is proposing a 5-year update cycle, which is the current practice in most States. For example, 39 States updated their SHSP or had an SHSP update underway within a 5-year timeframe. A number of those States are on the third version of their SHSP. Of those States that have not delivered an SHSP update, they have an update planned or an update well underway. Many of the elements are currently contained in former item (a)(3)(ii); however, FHWA proposes reordering and combining some of the items to reflect the sequence of actions States should take in HSIP planning. The proposed revisions highlight the importance of the SHSP in the HSIP planning process and that it is a separate element. Proposed sub-item (v) would require the SHSP performance-based goals be consistent with 23 U.S.C. 150 performance measures and be coordinated with other State highway safety programs. This would provide a necessary link to MAP-21 performance goals, tying the safety goals together so that the SHSP goals are consistent with those in 23 U.S.C. 150 and are coordinated with the NHTSA safety goals.[16]
In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes to add non-infrastructure safety projects, to be funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), to the list of highway safety improvement projects that would be carried out as part of the STIP processes consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR part 450. The FHWA also proposes to require States to be able to distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in the STIP in order to assist in tracking of the funds programmed on infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects for State and FHWA reporting purposes.
The FHWA proposes removing former paragraph (b) describing the 10 percent flex funds and former paragraph (c) describing funding set asides for improvements on high risk rural roads Start Printed Page 17470to reflect changes associated with MAP-21.
The FHWA proposes to relocate and clarify existing requirements related to SHSP implementation in new paragraph (c). As part of the existing HSIP planning process, States are currently required to determine priorities for SHSP implementation (sec. 924.9(a)(3)(ii)(I)) and propose a process for implementation of the plan (sec. 924.9(a)(3)(ii)(L)). The FHWA proposes to clarify that the SHSP shall include actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies would be implemented. The FHWA proposes this clarification to ensure that States develop actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies would be implemented contributing to significant reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. The inclusion of action steps or plans in a State SHSP is common practice. A number of State SHSPs [17] currently include actions to implement the emphasis areas for their respective State. For example, a number of State SHSPs, including Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nevada, and Rhode Island, contain actions to implement emphasis areas for their respective States. Each action step includes identification of the organization having primary responsibility in overseeing implementation of the associated action.
The FHWA proposes to retain existing paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) with minimal, editorial changes.
The FHWA proposes the following changes to paragraph (a) regarding the evaluation of the HSIP and SHSP:
Finally, FHWA proposes minor revisions to paragraph (c) to remove references to the STP and NHS (now NHPP) since evaluation is not the primary intent of these programs; replace the reference to 23 U.S.C. 104(f) with 104(d) to reflect the change in legislation numbering; and update references to the U.S.C. The FHWA also proposes to add language to clarify that use of these funding categories is subject to the individual program's eligibility Start Printed Page 17471criteria and the allocation of costs based on the benefit to each funding category.
The FHWA proposes to remove the requirements for reporting on the High Risk Rural Roads program and the transparency report because MAP-21 removes these reporting requirements.
The FHWA proposes to revise the HSIP report requirements to specify what should be contained in those reports. In paragraph (a), FHWA proposes to require that the report be submitted via the HSIP online reporting tool. Additional information about the online reporting tool is available on the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsip/​resources/​onrpttool/​. Submitting reports in this manner would lessen the burden on States and would assist FHWA in review and evaluation of the reports.
The FHWA does not propose any changes to the report describing progress to implement railway-highway grade crossing improvements.
The FHWA proposes to add section 924.17 containing the MIRE FDEs for the collection of roadway data. The FHWA proposes to include this section to comply with section 1112 of MAP-21 that amends 23 U.S.C. 148 to require model inventory of roadway elements as part of data improvement. As mandated under 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2), the Secretary of Transportation shall (A) establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and (B) ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection. The proposed MIRE FDEs have been published in several FHWA documents as discussed previously in the Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.9 Planning. This proposed section would consist of two tables of MIRE FDEs listing the MIRE name and number for roadway segments, intersections, and interchanges or ramps as appropriate. Table 1 contains the proposed MIRE FDEs for Roads with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) greater than or equal to 400 vehicles per day. The FHWA recognizes that fewer data elements are required to characterize two-lane roads, which carry lower traffic volumes than other types of roadway. Therefore, FHWA proposes a reduced set of MIRE FDE for roadways with less than 400 AADT. Table 2 of Section 924.17 contains the proposed MIRE FDEs for Roads with AADT less than 400 vehicles per day. The Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0 ,[18] report defines each roadway element and describes its attributes.
AADT (vehicles per day)
Estimated percentage of total fatalities
<400 17.7
300-399 0.6
200-299 0.8
100-199 1.5
<100 14.6
While FHWA is not proposing requirements for how States must collect and process the proposed MIRE FDE, FHWA envisions that States would do so using a variety of means, tools and technology, including, but not limited to: Data mining existing resources (e.g., existing State-maintained roadway inventories, as-built plans, and construction records), ground-based imaging (e.g., driving along roads and using mobile mapping and LiDAR), and aerial imaging (both with and without LiDAR). In addition, FHWA understands that State DOTs may need to work with local transportation authorities to collect the MIRE FDE. A description of various methodologies for collecting MIRE FDE is provided in the Start Printed Page 17472MIRE Data Collection Guidebook.[19] For each methodology, the guidebook includes a discussion of available and emerging technologies, data collection efficiencies and potential concerns. The guide also presents suggested data collection methodologies for specific MIRE data elements, and specific guidance on how the elements can be collected and considerations for collection. The FHWA seeks comments and cost data on the methods States plan to use to fulfill the proposed data collection requirements.
The specific roadway data requirements to estimate expected average crash experience on our roadways using safety performance functions and related safety management methods include the (1) type of roadway (e.g., two-lane rural highway versus six-lane urban freeway) and (2) exposure to crash risk (traffic volume, as measured by AADT, and length for roadway segments and ramps). The FHWA believes that the proposed MIRE FDE is the minimum subset of data elements needed to characterize the type of roadway and exposure on all public roads. The proposed MIRE FDE are the data elements whose effects on safety are best understood and most commonly applied by the highway safety profession, as documented in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, and that are most appropriate for use in the initial screening of the State's roadway network for sites with the greatest potential for safety improvement through infrastructure investment. The FHWA acknowledges that other variables may be equally (or more) important for predicting future crashes. Because the proposed MIRE FDE are only a subset of variables that may be useful for estimating expected crashes, it is possible that using only the proposed MIRE FDE in prediction models may produce biased results of future crashes. After it issues a final rule, FHWA will continue to work with stakeholders to explore other data elements for inclusion in the regulations or guidance to improve prediction models, or data elements to remove from regulations in the future. The Start Printed Page 17473FHWA invites comments on ways to minimize the cost of using the proposed MIRE FDE (e.g., incorporating the data into models), including any technical or other assistance that could be offered by FHWA.
Interchange/ramps
Segment Identifier Unique junction identifier Unique Interchange Identifier.
Route Number Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal.
Route/Street Name Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point Location Identifier for Roadway at End Ramp Terminal.
Federal-Aid/Route Type Unique Approach Identifier.
Begin Point Segment Descriptor.
End Point Segment Descriptor.
Direction of Inventory.
Table 5 illustrates the MIRE FDE needed to characterize the roadway type and exposure. This information is used as inputs to estimate the expected crash frequency on individual segments, intersections and interchanges/ramps using the methods described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual.
Rural/Urban Designation Intersection/Junction Geometry Ramp Length.
Surface Type Intersection/Junction Traffic Control Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal.
Segment Length AADT [for each intersecting road] Roadway Type at End Ramp Terminal.
Median Type AADT Year [for each intersecting road] Interchange Type.
Access Control Ramp AADT.
One/Two-Operations Year of Ramp AADT.
Number of Through Lanes.
AADT Year.
Table 6 presents the MIRE FDE needed to satisfy MAP-21 reporting requirements (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(c)(i) and (ii)).
Functional Class Functional Class.
Type of Governmental Ownership Type of Governmental Ownership.
The FHWA has determined that this proposed action is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to the significant public interest in regulations related to traffic safety. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would not be economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 as discussed below. This action complies with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation.
The SAFETEA-LU and existing regulation currently require States to update their SHSP on a regular basis. This proposed rulemaking requires States to update their SHSP at least every 5 years. Thirty nine States updated their SHSP or had an SHSP update underway within a 5-year timeframe. A number of those States are on the third version of their SHSP. Of those States that have not delivered an Start Printed Page 17474SHSP update, they have an update planned or an update well underway. The FHWA has not estimated the cost of this proposal on States that update their SHSP less frequently than every 5 years. The FHWA believes the cost of this proposal is small, but invites comments on whether it would result in substantial costs, and how those costs could be estimated.
Therefore, FHWA bases its cost-benefit analysis for the NPRM on the cost to collect, maintain, and use MIRE FDE only. The “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” [20] report was developed to support the MAP-21 State Safety Data Systems guidance published on December 27, 2012, and is the basis for the NPRM cost-benefit analysis since the proposed MIRE FDE in this NPRM are based upon the recommended MIRE FDE in the guidance. The objective of this report was to estimate the potential cost to States in extending their statewide linear referencing system (LRS) and collecting the MIRE FDEs for the purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through the HPMS or not already being collected for other purposes. The cost estimate does not include the cost of analyzing the MIRE FDE and performance measure data. States are currently required to conduct safety analysis using the best available data. States meet this requirement using a variety of methods, but most commonly States use crash frequency and crash rate to identify and prioritize potential locations for safety improvement. The MIRE FDE enables States to use advanced safety analysis methods to conduct this analysis. The FHWA does not believe that States will incur any additional costs from analyzing or otherwise using the proposed MIRE FDE. The FHWA believes that States will use methods incorporating the proposed MIRE FDE in lieu of existing methods. In other words, FHWA believes that States will discontinue using existing methods and, in place of these methods, conduct new analyses using the proposed MIRE FDE that will more accurately estimate the expected number of crashes at a location. The FHWA believes the overall net effect would be no new costs to States from using the MIRE FDE. The FHWA requests comments on whether this understanding is accurate, or whether States will incur new costs from using the proposed MIRE FDE to identify safety problems and projects. The basic cost-estimation methodology is to apply estimated unit costs to the public road mileage reported by States to the FHWA HPMS.21 The MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation Report documents the various unit-cost estimates and assumptions applied to each State's public road mileage to estimate the breakouts of total mileage by AADT range and by LRS coverage, the number of intersections and ramps, and the corresponding cost of the various components. The data used as the basis for the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report are available on the docket in a supplemental spreadsheet titled “MIRE FDE Analysis Supplemental Tables.”
With the passage of MAP-21, States will be required to collect data on all public roads, including non-Federal-aid roads. To initiate this process, States will need to develop a common statewide relational LRS on all public roads that is linkable with crash data, as required by 23 CFR 1.5 and described in recent FHWA guidance [22] issued on August 7, 2012. Based on this criteria, the report estimated that the cost of data collection for an average State is $1,362,800 to complete the LRS and initial MIRE FDE collection efforts, $66,600 for management and administration costs and $2,896,100 for maintenance costs over the analysis period of 2013-2029 (in 2013 U.S. dollars). These are average net present value costs (at a 0.5 percent discount rate) on a per State basis. As such, across the 50 States and the District of Columbia, it is possible that the aggregate cost for initial data collection would be approximately $69.5 million, and the annual maintenance cost would approach $11.5 million. This equates to approximately $225,000 on average for a State to maintain the data annually. Table 7 displays the total national annual cost of the proposed rule. Total costs are estimated to be $228.8 million undiscounted, $220.6 million discounted at 0.5 percent (the discount rate used in the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report), $185.8 million discounted at 3 percent, and $146.1 million discounted at 7 percent.
Management & administration of data system 3,449,812 3,394,474 3,138,075 2,788,571
The FHWA initiated this proposed rulemaking to address the MAP-21 requirements for the Secretary to establish the MIRE FDE, SHSP update cycle, and reporting content and schedule. Furthermore, MAP-21 requires States to report on their safety performance in relation to the national safety performance measures in 23 U.S.C. 150(e). The collection and use of the MIRE FDE information would enhance States ability to:
Develop quantifiable annual performance targets
Conduct data analyses supporting the identification and evaluation of proposed countermeasures
This proposed rulemaking will improve HSIP implementation efforts resulting in a significant impact on improving safety on our Nation's roads. Collecting the MIRE FDE data and integrating those data into the safety analysis process would support more effective safety investment decisionmaking by improving an agency's ability to locate problem areas with the greatest potential for safety improvement and apply the most appropriate countermeasures. More effective safety investments yield more lives saved and injuries avoided per dollar invested.
The benefits of this rule would be the monetized value of the crashes, fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage avoided by the projects identified and implemented using the proposed MIRE FDE minus the foregone monetized value of the crashes, fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage avoided by the projects identified and implemented using current data and methods used by States to allocate safety resources. The FHWA has not endeavored to estimate the benefits of this rule in this way, but welcomes comments on how it could estimate such benefits at the final rule stage. Instead, FHWA conducted a break-even analysis. The “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” [23] report estimated the reduction in fatalities and injuries that would be needed to exceed 1:1 and 2:1 ratios of benefits to costs. Table 8 summarizes these needed benefits. The injury costs used in the report reflect the average injury costs based on the national distribution of injuries in the General Estimate System using a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale.
# of injuries avoided 1246 1263 1353 1517
# of injuries avoided 2493 2527 2706 3034
Using the 2012 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,100,000 and $107,438 for Start Printed Page 17476an injury,[24] results in an estimated reduction of 0.38 fatalities and 24.77 injuries per average State over the 2013-2029 analysis period would be needed to result in a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1:1. To achieve a benefit-cost ratio of 2:1, fatalities would need to be reduced by 0.76 and injuries by 49.54 per average State over the same analysis period.
One study on the effectiveness of the HSIP found: [25]
For example, this study cites Colorado's safety improvements, noting “Deployment of advanced methods on all projects and acquisition of high-quality data may explain why Colorado outperformed the rest of the country in reduction of fatal crashes.” [26] Illinois was also high on this study's list of States with the highest percentage reduction in fatalities. In a case study of Illinois' use of AASHTO Highway Safety Manual methods, an Illinois DOT official noted that use of these methods “requires additional roadway data, but has improved the sophistication of safety analyses in Illinois resulting in better decisions to allocate limited safety resources.” [27] Another case study of Ohio's adoption of a tool to apply the roadway safety management methods described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual concluded, “In Ohio, one of the benefits of applying various HSM screening methods was identifying ways to overcome some of the limitations of existing practices. For example, the previous mainframe methodology typically over-emphasized urban “sites of promise”—locations identified for further investigation and potential countermeasure implementation. These locations were usually in the largest urban areas, often with a high frequency of crashes that were low in severity. Now, several screening methods can be used in the network screening process resulting in greater identification of rural corridors and projects. This identification enables Ohio's safety program to address more factors contributing to fatal and injury crashes across the State, instead of being limited to high-crash locations in urban areas, where crashes often result in minor or no injuries.” [28] Another document quantified these benefits, indicating that the number of fatalities per identified mile is 67 percent higher, the number of serious injuries per mile is 151 percent higher, and the number of total crashes is 105 percent higher with these new methods than with their former methods.[29] In summary, all three States experienced benefits to the effectiveness of safety investment decisionmaking through the use of methods that included roadway data akin to the MIRE FDE and crash data in their highway safety analyses.
In 2010, 32,885 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, and an estimated 2.24 million people were injured.[30 31] The decrease in fatalities needed to achieve a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio represent a 0.4 percent reduction of annual fatalities using 2010 statistics. The experiences to date in States that are already collecting and using roadway data comparable to the MIRE FDE suggests there is a very high likelihood that the benefits of collecting and using the proposed MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs. We believe that the proposed MIRE FDE in combination with crash data will support more cost-effective safety investment decisions and ultimately yield greater reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per dollar invested.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes on small entities and anticipates that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rulemaking addresses the HSIP. As such, it affects only States, and States are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the RFA 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.
The FHWA has evaluated this proposed rule for unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). As part of this evaluation, FHWA has determined that this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of greater than $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). The FHWA bases its analysis on the “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” Report.[32] The objective of this report was to estimate the potential cost to States in developing a statewide LRS and collecting the MIRE FDEs for the purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through the HPMS or not already being collected through other efforts. The funds used to establish a data collection system, collect initial data, and maintain annual data collection are reimbursable to the States through the HSIP program.
Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.Start Printed Page 17477
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed rulemaking would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to conducting or sponsoring a “collection of information” as defined by the PRA. The FHWA currently has OMB approval under “Highway Safety Improvement Programs” (OMB Control No: 2125-0025) to collect the information required by State's annual HSIP reports. The FHWA desires to concurrently update this request to reflect MAP-21 requirements as proposed in this NPRM.[33] The FHWA invites comments about our intention to request OMB approval for a new information collection to include the additional components required in this NPRM to reflect MAP-21 requirements described in the Supplementary Information below. Any action that might be contemplated in subsequent phases of this proceeding will be analyzed for the purpose of the PRA for its impact to this current information collection. The FHWA will submit the proposed collections of information to OMB for review and approval at the time the NPRM is issued and, accordingly, seeks comments.
The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 U.S.C. 130(g), Railway-Highway Crossings Program, FHWA proposes in this NPRM to collect a report describing progress being made to implement the HSIP and a report describing progress being made to implement railway-highway grade crossing improvements. The FHWA proposes that the State DOTs continue to annually produce and submit these reports to FHWA by August 31. The FHWA proposes the HSIP report to (1) describe the structure of the HSIP; (2) describes the progress in implementing HSIP projects; (3) describes progress in achieving safety performance targets; and (4) assesses the effectiveness of the improvements. The States currently report this information, with the exception of the proposed requirement that State's document the established safety performance targets for the following calendar year in their annual HSIP report (that will be developed as per the Transportation Performance Management: Safety NPRM being published concurrently with this NPRM). Similarly, FHWA proposes the Railway-Highway Crossing Program Report continue to describe progress being made to implement railway-highway grade crossing improvements in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 130(g), and the effectiveness of these improvements.
The information contained in the annual HSIP reports provides FHWA with a means for monitoring the effectiveness of these programs and may be used by Congress for determining the future HSIP program structure and funding levels. In addition, FHWA uses the information collected as part of the HSIP reports to prepare an HSIP National Summary Report,[34] which summarizes the number of HSIP projects by type and cost. The Railway-Highway Crossing Program Reports are used by FHWA to produce and submit biennial reports to Congress.
Section 148(h)(3), of title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to make the State's HSIP reports [35] and SHSP [36] available on the Department's Web site. The FHWA proposes States use the online reporting tool to support the annual HSIP reporting process. Additional information is available on the Office of Safety Web site at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsip/​resources/​onrpttool/​. Reporting into the online reporting tool meets all report requirements and DOT Web site compatibility requirements.
A burden estimate for the HSIP Reports and MIRE FDE is summarized below in Table 5. The HSIP Reports burden represents the annual burden per each collection cycle; whereas, the MIRE FDE burden represents the initial data collection and maintenance burdens over the 2013-2029 analysis period, consistent with the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report. This report calculated the MIRE FDE costs as a dollar figure. To turn this into an equivalent hourly burden, we took the total costs (including technology and data collection by vendors) and turned them into labor hours ($55/hour, including overhead).Start Printed Page 17478
HSIP Reports
MIRE FDE (initial collection spread over 5 years)
MIRE FDE (maintenance for 16 years)
Respondents 51 State Transportation Departments, including the District of Columbia.
Frequency Annually, by August 31st Once, within 5 years of HSIP final rule publication Annual.
Estimated Average Burden per Response 250 hours 25,987 hours * 52,656 hours.**
Estimated total burden hours 12,750 hours 1,325,360 hours * 2,685,475 hours.**
* Over 5 years of data collection.
** Over 16 year (2013-2029) analysis period (from the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report).
Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways for FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).
Executive Order 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 rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, and 315; 49 CFR 1.85.
§ 924.1
§ 924.3
Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities, or projects on a public road that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan Start Printed Page 17479(SHSP) and that either corrects or improves a hazardous road segment location or feature, or addresses a highway safety problem. Highway safety improvement projects can include both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. Examples of projects are described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a).
§ 924.5
§ 924.7
§ 924.9
(A) Are consistent with performance measures established by FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; andStart Printed Page 17480
§ 924.11
§ 924.13
§ 924.15
(i) Describes the structure of the HSIP: This section shall describe how HSIP funds are administered in the State and include a summary of the methodology used to develop the programs and projects being implemented under the HSIP on all public roads.Start Printed Page 17481
§ 924.17
MIRE Name (MIRE Number)^
Roadway Segment Intersection
Segment Identifier (12) Unique Junction Identifier (120).
Route Number (8) * Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122).
Route/street Name (9) * Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123).
Federal Aid/Route Type (21) ±* Intersection/Junction Geometry (126)
Rural/Urban Designation (20) ±* Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131).
Surface Type (23) * AADT (79) [for Each Intersecting Road].
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) * AADT Year (80) [for Each Intersecting Road].
End Point Segment Descriptor (11) *.
Segment Length (13) *.
Direction of Inventory (18) Unique Approach Identifier (139).
Functional Class (19) *.
Access Control (22) *.
One/Two-Way Operations (91) * Interchange/Ramp
Number of Through Lanes (31) * Unique Interchange Identifier (178).
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79) * Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal (197).
AADT Year (80) * Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal (201).
Type of Governmental Ownership (4) * Ramp Length (187).
Ramp AADT (191) *.
Year of Ramp AADT (192) *.
Type of Governmental Ownership (4) *.
^ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/​collateral/​mire_​report.pdf.
* Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
MIRE Name (MIRE Number) ^
Functional Class (19) * Intersection/Junction Geometry (126).
Surface Type (23) * Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122).
Type of Governmental Ownership (4) * Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123).
Number of Through Lanes (31) * Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131).
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79) *.
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) *.
Rural/Urban Designation (20) *.
1. Office of the Inspector General, FHWA Provides Sufficient Guidance and Assistance to Implement the Highway Safety Improvement Program but Could Do More to Assess Program Results, Report Number: MH-2013-055. March 26, 2013 is available at the following Internet Web site: http://www.oig.dot.gov/​sites/​dot/​files/​FHWA's%20Highway%20Safety%20Improvement%20Program%5E3-26-13.pdf.
2. Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​map21/​guidance/​guidesafetydata.cfm.
3. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation”, FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​rsdp/​downloads/​mire_​fde_​%20cbe_​finalrpt_​032913.pdf.
4. DOT defines management and administration costs as the costs to administer contracts for data collection. The analysis estimates management and administration costs at 5 percent of the estimated initial MIRE FDE collection costs. The analysis assumes management and administration costs would not exceed $250,000 per State.
5. DOT defines maintenance costs as the costs to update the data as conditions change. The analysis assumes that 2 percent of roadway mileage would need to be updated annually.
10. Wu, K.-F., Himes, S.C., and Pietrucha, M.T., “Evaluation of Effectiveness of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program,” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2318, pp. 23-34, 2013.
11. Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program, issued August 1, 2011 can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​tools/​data_​tools/​memohsip072911/​.
12. Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​map21/​guidance/​guidesafetydata.cfm.
13. Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​map21/​guidance/​guidesafetydata.cfm.
14. Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/​collateral/​mire_​report.pdf.
15. “Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highways Safety Improvement Program (Background Report),” FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-11-39, published June 2011 is available at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​tools/​data_​tools/​dcag.cfm.
16. According to MAP-21, the NHTSA safety performance goals are to be limited to those described in “Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies” (DOT HS 811 025). This report is available at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/​DOT/​NHTSA/​Traffic%20Injury%20Control/​Articles/​Associated%20Files/​811025.pdf. The document found at this link can also be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
17. Individual State SHSPs are linked from the FHWA Office of Safety Web site at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsip/​shsp/​state_​links.cfm.
18. Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/​collateral/​mire_​report.pdf.
19. FHWA, MIRE Data Collection Guidebook, June 2013, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​rsdp/​downloads/​datacollectionguidebook.pdf.
20. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation”, FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​rsdp/​downloads/​mire_​fde_​%20cbe_​finalrpt_​032913.pdf.
21. HPMS, FHWA, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​policyinformation/​statistics/​2011/​index.cfm#hm.
22. A copy of “Guidance Memorandum on Geospatial Network for all Public Roads,” issued August 7, 2012, can be viewed at www.regulations.gov under the docket number listed in the heading of this document.
23. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation,” FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​rsdp/​downloads/​mire_​fde_​%20cbe_​finalrpt_​032913.pdf. The document found at this link can also be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
24. Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Memorandum on Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, February 28, 2013. http://www.dot.gov/​regulations/​economic-values-used-in-analysis.
25. Wu, K.-F., Himes, S.C., and Pietrucha, M.T., “Evaluation of Effectiveness of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program,” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2318, pp. 23-34, 2013.
27. Highway Safety Manual Case Study 4: Development of Safety Performance Functions for Network Screening in Illinois. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsm/​casestudies/​il_​cstd.cfm.
28. Highway Safety Manual Case Study 2: Implementing a New Roadway Safety Management Process with SafetyAnalyst in Ohio. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsm/​casestudies/​oh_​cstd.cfm.
29. Hughes, J. and Council, F.M., “How Good Data Lead to Better Safety Decisions,” ITE Journal, April 2012.
30. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—Fatality Analysis Reporting System: can be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/​FARS.
31. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES): can be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/​NASS.
32. “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation”, FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​rsdp/​downloads/​mire_​fde_​%20cbe_​finalrpt_​032913.pdf.
33. This information collection request (ICR) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAViewICR?​ref_​nbr=​201308-2125-002.
34. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsip/​reports/​nsbrpt_​2009_​2012.cfm.
35. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsip/​reports/​.
36. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/​hsip/​shsp/​state_​links.cfm.
[FR Doc. 2014-06681 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]