Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/03/11/2014-05152/national-performance-management-measures-highway-safety-improvement-program
Timestamp: 2015-09-03 06:50:45
Document Index: 342603152

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 450', 'art 490', 'ART 490', '§ 490', '§ 490', '§ 490', '§ 490', '§ 490', '§ 490', '§ 490', '§ 490']

Federal Register | National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety Improvement Program
Dates: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2014. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
-13871 (27 pages)
Document Number: 2014-05152
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-05152 Related Topics
National Goals and Performance Management Measures (MAP-21) 5 actions from March 11th, 2014 to September 2015
79 FR 13846
Section 490.101General Definitions
Section 490.201Purpose
Section 490.203Applicability
Section 490.205Definitions
Section 490.207National Performance Measures for the Highway Safety Improvement Program
Section 490.209Establishment of Performance Targets
Section 490.211Determining Whether a State DOT Has Made Significant Progress Toward Achieving Performance Targets
Section 490.213Reporting of Targets for the Highway Safety Improvement Program
The MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance management refocuses attention on national transportation goals, increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program, and improves project decision making through performance-based planning and programming. The FHWA is required to establish measures through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas
generalized as follows: (1) serious injuries per Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); (2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the Interstate system; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS; (7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) traffic congestion; (9) on-road mobile source emissions; (10) freight movement on the Interstate system; (11) performance of the Interstate system; and (12) performance of the non-Interstate NHS. This rulemaking is the first of 3 NPRMs that propose the establishment of performance measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess performance in each of these 12 areas. This rulemaking seeks to establish measures for the first four areas in the above list.
The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with eight new requirements
proposed in this NPRM that represent a change to current practices for State DOTs and MPOs. The FHWA derived the costs of all eight components by assessing the expected increase in level of effort from labor to standardize and update data collection and reporting systems of State DOTs, as well as the increase in level of effort from labor to establish and report targets.
To estimate costs, the 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. Following this approach the 10-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule is $66.7 million. Approximately 39 percent of these costs represent one time costs to implement this rule.
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 benefits, the FHWA used a break-even analysis as the primary approach to quantify benefits. Following this approach, the FHWA used the break-even analysis to assess the level of reduction in fatalities or incapacitating injuries needed for the benefits to justify the costs of the proposed rule. The results of the break-even analysis showed that the proposed rule would need to prevent approximately 7 fatalities or an equivalent 153 incapacitating injuries nationwide over 10 years to generate enough benefits to outweigh the cost of the proposed rule. This translates to approximately 1 avoided fatality or 15 equivalent incapacitating injuries respectively per year nationwide (compared to 33,561 fatalities and an estimated 2.36 million injuries as reported by NHTSA for 2012
). 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 following table summarizes the costs and identifies the breakeven benefits of the proposed rule.
Summary of Estimated Costs and Benefits Back to Top
$7,670,390 7,092,939
Proposed Rule RIA.
No substantial impact
The rule is cost-beneficial if over the 10-year analysis period if it reduces the number of fatalities by 7.3 or the number of incapacitating injuries by 153.2, which is equivalently .7 fatalities or 15.3 incapacitating injuries per year in a 10-year study period, from its current base case projection. Because of this low threshold, FHWA determines that the proposed rule benefits outweigh the costs.
II. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach Back to Top
It is the 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, the DOT provided opportunities for broader public participation. Those opportunities included facilitating opportunities for the public to provide technical and economic information to improve the agency's understanding of a subject and the potential impacts of rulemaking. This was done by providing an email address (performancemeasuresrulemaking@dot.gov) feature on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site to allow the public to provide comments and suggestions about the development of the performance measures and by holding national online dialogues and listening sessions to ask the public to post their ideas on national performance measures, standards, and policies. The FHWA also conducted educational outreach to inform the public about transportation-related performance measures and standards, and solicited comments on them.
III. Rulemaking Authority and Background Back to Top
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 FHWA's implementation of performance provisions related to the HSIP. A rulemaking to update the HSIP regulations at 23 CFR 924 is also underway (RIN 2125-AF56). Interested persons should refer to both rulemakings. Additional rulemakings are underway to implement other MAP-21 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.
a. Propose and define national measures for the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
9. Highway Safety Grant Programs Rule (NHTSA Interim Final Rule (IFR)
(RIN: 2127-AL30, 2127-AL29)
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 pavement conditions for the Interstate and NHS (excluding Interstate), NHS bridge condition, and performance of the Interstate and NHS (excluding Interstate); 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 FHWA will issue three NPRMs in sequence to propose the measures for the areas listed above. This NPRM focuses 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. A second NPRM will be issued by FHWA that will propose the measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges, and a third NPRM will be issued that will propose the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require the establishment of measures. We anticipate 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 an appropriate effective date would be. Additional information on the approach to establish performance measures for the Federal-aid highway program can be found on the FHWA's Transportation Performance Management Web site.
The MAP-21 also requires the FHWA to establish minimum standards for State DOTs to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems,
which the FHWA will propose in a separate rulemaking to establish a Risk Based Asset Management Plan for the NHS. In addition, MAP-21 requires the FHWA to establish minimum levels for the condition of pavements for the Interstate
necessary to carry out the NHPP. The FHWA will propose these levels in the second rulemaking to establish measures that focus on pavement and bridge condition for the NHS.
Separate sections of MAP-21 require the establishment of additional measures to assess public transportation performance.
These measures, which will be used to monitor the state of good repair of transit facilities and to establish transit safety criteria, will be addressed in two separate rulemakings, led by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program
and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these measures where applicable.
This NPRM proposes the process for State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety performance targets. The second and third Federal-aid highway performance measure NPRMs will 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.
A separate rulemaking to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations at 23 CFR 450 discusses this coordination requirement. The FHWA will discuss those target establishment requirements in the subsequent rulemakings to implement these respective provisions.
Further, MAP-21 requires SHSOs to establish targets for 10 core highway safety program measures in the State Highway Safety Plan, which NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final Rule (NHTSA IFR),
and for recipients of public transportation Federal funding and MPOs to establish state of good repair and safety targets.
Discussions on these target establishment requirements are not included in this NPRM.
A number of provisions within MAP-21 require States and MPOs to develop plans that provide strategic direction for addressing performance needs. For the Federal-aid highway program these provisions require: State DOTs to develop an NHS Asset Management Plan;
State DOTs to update their Strategic Highway Safety Plan;
MPOs serving a large transportation management area in areas of non-attainment or maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan;
MPOs to include a System Performance Report in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan;
and State DOTs and MPOs to include a discussion, to the maximum extent practical, in their Transportation Improvement Program as to how the program will achieve the performance targets they have established for the area.
In addition, State DOTs are encouraged to develop a State Freight Plan
to document planned activities and investments with respect to freight. This rulemaking does not discuss any requirements to develop or use plans. Rather, a discussion on the development and use of these plans will 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.
The MAP-21 section 1203 requires State DOTs to submit biennial reports to the 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.
The FHWA is proposing in this NPRM that State DOTs report safety progress through the HSIP annual report, rather than the biennial report required under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). Accordingly, this NPRM does not discuss this biennial report. Rather, the FHWA will discuss the biennial report in the second and third performance measures NPRMs, which will propose the establishment of non-safety measures for the Federal-aid highway program.
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 reporting periods, then the State DOT must document in its next report the actions it will take to achieve the targets.
The FHWA will discuss this provision in the second NPRM, which will propose pavement and bridge performance measures for the NHS. For the HSIP, if the State DOT does not achieve or has not made significant progress toward the achievement of its HSIP safety targets, then the State DOT must dedicate a specified amount of its obligation limitation to safety projects and prepare an annual implementation plan.
The regulatory definition and discussion below of “made significant progress” applies only for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP.
In addition, MAP-21 requires that each State DOT maintain minimum standards for Interstate 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.
The FHWA will discuss this provision in the second NPRM, which will propose pavement and bridge performance measures for the NHS.
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. If the State DOT does not meet these special rules, which contain minimum performance standards, then it must dedicate a portion of HSIP funding (in the case of the high risk rural road special rule) or document in their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) actions it intends to take to improve performance (in the case of the older driver and pedestrian special rule). Guidance on how FHWA will administer these two special rules is provided on the FHWA MAP-21 Web site.
IV. Performance Measure Analysis Back to Top
The DOT believes that a unified State approach to highway safety promotes comprehensive transportation and safety planning and program efficiency in the States. For this reason, the DOT proposes that performance measures common to the State's HSP and the HSIP (fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries) would be defined identically, as coordinated through the SHSP and subject to the GHSA coordination process NHTSA must follow under MAP-21.
As stated in NHTSA's IFR, SHSOs have been moving in the direction of using performance measures, such as the number of fatalities and serious injuries and fatality rate, in the State HSP for a number of years. Since 2010, all SHSOs have voluntarily established targets for these performance measures, as described in the report, Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies (DOT HS 811 025), developed as a cooperative effort between NHTSA and the GHSA. The MAP-21 requires SHSOs to use the Traffic Safety Performance Measures report for establishing performance measures and targets in the HSP beginning in fiscal year 2014.
The MAP-21 further requires NHTSA to coordinate with GHSA in making revisions to the performance measures identified in the report.
The performance requirements within MAP-21 are the first foundational steps that will focus the Federal-aid highway program on performance outcomes. It is expected, in this foundational stage, that State DOTs and MPOs will be learning how to manage performance by balancing investment trade-offs across multiple performance measures; many State DOTs and MPOs will be establishing targets to carry out the HSIP for the first time as a result of this new requirement. Therefore, FHWA desires to establish a minimal number of measures to implement 23 U.S.C. 150(c) considering the requirement for State DOTs
and MPOs
to establish targets for each of these measures (a minimum of 12 measures will be established).
The more detailed analysis of separating specific types of fatalities and serious injuries for a range of disaggregated measures takes place in the creation of the SHSP. The MAP-21 requires that States take into consideration all vehicle and user needs when establishing goals, objectives, and emphasis areas, and describe a program of strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards through the SHSP. Each State DOT identifies emphasis areas based on the analysis of all the available safety data after consultation with and input from the safety stakeholders representing the four E's from safety.
This analysis and collaboration helps identify the causes of safety hazards, and helps to develop successful improvement strategies to address those hazards and is used in decision making for FHWA's HSIP and NHTSA's highway safety programs. It is the development of the SHSP through a data-driven, coordinated process that includes the State DOTs, MPOs, and other safety stakeholders that ensures specific vehicle and user needs are addressed.
The HSIP safety performance measures should be viewed in the context of other DOT performance measures. As amended by MAP-21, 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4) specifies that for the NHTSA HSP, traffic safety performance measures, developed in a cooperative effort between NHTSA and GHSA, are to be used by SHSOs in the development and implementation of behavioral highway safety plans and programs. Although limited in fiscal year (FY) 2014 to an initial set of 10 core outcome measures, 1 core behavior measure, and 3 activity measures, MAP-21 allows the NHTSA in subsequent fiscal years to make revisions to the set of performance measures required in the HSP through a coordinated process with GHSA.
The FHWA will continue to work with NHTSA toward a consistent application of traffic safety performance measures through a consensus process, subject to the GHSA coordination process NHTSA must follow under MAP-21.
The DOT requests comments on how the Department could address separate non-motorized performance measures. The DOT requests input on the extent to which States and MPOs currently collect and report non-motorized data (fatality, serious injury, miles traveled) and the reliability and accuracy of such data, and how States and MPOs consider such data in their safety programs and in selecting investments. The DOT also invites the public to suggest ways to most efficiently track, report, and use performance measures to improve safety.
Criterion B2—consider an approach to defining serious injuries that would improve consistency in application across the country and recognize that consistency improvements can take time to implement.
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and Proposed Highway Safety Improvement Program Performance Measures Back to Top
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.
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 include a definition for “5-year rolling average,” because the FHWA proposes that State DOTs and MPOs use this information in calculating the performance measures for carrying out the HSIP. The 5-year rolling average is the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data for each proposed performance measure (e.g., 5-year rolling average of the annual fatality rate). Using a multiyear average approach does not eliminate years with significant increases or decreases. Instead, it provides a better understanding of the overall fatality and serious injury data over time. The 5-year rolling average also provides a mechanism for accounting for regression to the mean. If a particularly high or low number of fatalities and/or serious injuries occur in 1 year, a return to a level consistent with the average in the previous year may occur. The FHWA considered annual data, and 3-, 4-, and 5-year rolling averages, evaluating each of these options against the data currently available for all States. States with a small number of fatalities may see wide fluctuations in the number of fatalities from year to year. For those States, a rolling average would reduce short term fluctuations and highlight long term trends. A 5-year rolling average provides a balance between the stability of the data (by averaging multiple years) and providing an accurate trend of the data (by minimizing how far back in time to consider data).
The FHWA proposes a definition for the “number of fatalities” because it would be used to establish one of the measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess safety performance related to fatalities and for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP. The FHWA also proposes a definition for the “number of serious injuries” because it would be used to establish one of the measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess safety performance related to serious injuries for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP.
The FHWA also proposes a definition of “serious injuries.” In defining the term “serious injuries,” the FHWA recognizes there are many disparities between States' definitions of serious injuries and the coding convention used to report them. These discrepancies have long been recognized as a problem in collecting and analyzing data at the national level, and may be a problem in measuring progress toward the national goal of “significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.”
The proposed definition would result in a consistent definition of “serious injuries,” which would standardize and improve the quality of data, and improve the ability to evaluate State DOT and national progress in achieving safety on the Nation's roads.
The FHWA proposes that the definition and attribute for “serious injuries” is a “`suspected serious injury' (A)” as identified in the latest edition of the MMUCC.
The MMUCC definition of a suspected serious injury (A) is any injury, other than fatal, which results in one or more of the following:
The following items describe the calculation for each of the four performance measures. In subparagraph (1), the FHWA proposes that the performance measure for the number of fatalities would be the 5-year rolling average of the total number of fatalities for each State and would be calculated by adding the number of fatalities for the most recent 5 consecutive calendar years in which data are available and dividing by 5. As stated in the definitions section, the total number of fatalities for each State would be based on the data reported by the FARS database for each calendar year. The FARS database is recognized as the standard for reporting fatalities and is already used by the State DOTs and the DOT.
The DOT is an active liaison to the NCHRP Project 17-57 Development of a Comprehensive Approach for Serious Traffic Crash Injury Measurement and Reporting Systems. The project's goals are to identify an injury scoring system for further consideration, develop a roadmap to assist States in developing and implementing an interim system, and ultimately develop a State-based framework to perform comprehensive linkage of records related to motor vehicle crashes resulting in serious injuries, and incremental steps and priorities for achieving the linkage (http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3179). The DOT anticipates that this project will be completed by 2014, and the recommendations could then be effectively implemented in all States. To the extent possible, DOT would work with States that implement a data linkage system prior to the recommended date. This rulemaking would not prohibit a State from using a data linkage system like CODES, but this rulemaking would require States to use the MMUCC definition of “suspected serious injury” and the KABCO system, through use of the NHTSA conversion tables, for reporting serious injuries data.
The current time lag (time period between the end of the calendar year in which the data were collected to the date the data is available in the national system for the final FARS and HPMS data) is approximately 24 months. The FHWA recognizes the challenges to State DOTs in dealing with the uncertainty of data available in national data sources and how this uncertainty would need to be considered in the target establishment process.
The FHWA recognizes the burden on MPOs to establish their own performance targets, especially where the targets are annual targets. As such, the FHWA proposes in subparagraph (3) that MPOs establish targets by either agreeing to plan and program safety projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of 1 year safety targets established by the State DOT, or committing to a quantifiable 1 year safety target specific to the roadways within the metropolitan planning area.
In section 490.211(b), the FHWA proposes that it would evaluate achievement of each performance target. The FHWA considered a number of different approaches to implement the State DOT performance targets provision specified in 23 U.S.C. 148(i). This provision requires State DOTs that have not achieved or made significant progress toward achieving the State DOT performance targets obligate a portion of their HSIP funding in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(1) only for highway safety improvement projects, and to develop and submit an annual implementation plan to document how State DOTs intend to improve performance using HSIP funds. The FHWA recognizes the risks associated with target establishment and the factors that could impact the ability to achieve a target that could be outside of a State DOT's control. The FHWA considered these risks and factors in its evaluation of different approaches to implement this provision. For example, a number of factors were raised as part of the performance management stakeholder outreach sessions regarding target establishment and progress assessment, such as the impact of funding availability on performance outcomes, the reliability of the current state-of-practice to predict outcomes resulting from investments at a system level, the impact of uncertain events or events outside the control of a State DOT on performance outcomes, the need to consider multiple performance priorities in making investment trade-off decisions, and the challenges associated with balancing local and national objectives.
The FHWA proposes in subparagraph (2) to evaluate significant progress
for each performance target not achieved. First, the FHWA would determine a historical trend line based on FARS, State reported serious injury, and HPMS data for the State. In determining the historical trend line, the FHWA would plot 5-year rolling averages for 10 consecutive years using the most recent data available at the time the State sets the target. For example, the historical trend line for the first assessment of significant progress under this regulation would consist of six data points from the following 5-year rolling averages: 2004-2008, 2005-2009, 2006-2010, 2007-2011, 2008-2012, 2009-2013.
When predicting a future point (projection) or estimate, there is an element of uncertainty. A prediction interval acknowledges these uncertainties and provides a range in which the actual point should fall. The prediction percentage describes the probability that the actual point will fall within the given range. The determination of the interval size is a statistical process that includes consideration of several factors including previous years of actual data.
In section 490.213(b), the FHWA proposes that the manner in which MPOs report their established targets be documented within the Metropolitan Planning Agreement, which is regulated under 23 CFR part 450. The MPOs would report their established safety 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 recognizes that there are numerous methods for developing and establishing performance targets to comply with this subpart. In this example, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148 and 23 U.S.C. 402, the State DOT uses an evidence-based, data-driven approach to establish its targets for all measures. In doing so, the State DOT recognizes that a new primary seat belt law takes effect in CY 2016 and calibrates its fatality targets by reducing the anticipated number of fatalities for CY 2017. The State DOT makes this calibration to its trend line by using evidentiary data contained in the NHTSA Research Note “States With Primary Enforcement Laws Have Lower Fatality Rates.”
Based on the passage of the law and information in the Research Note, the State estimates a 10 percent increase in seat belt use rate, which equates to an anticipated reduction of 59 fatalities. The State DOT does not believe other external factors beyond a State's control (e.g. economic conditions, weather patterns, technological safety improvements) will have a significant effect on the crash numbers during the year and did not use these factors to calibrate the trend line further. The State DOT does not elect to set urbanized and non-urbanized targets for any of the performance measures.
Table 1—An Example of the Data Available to a State DOT and the Targets Established for CY 2017 Back to Top
VMT (in millions)
Table 2—Final Data for Assessing Target Achievement Back to Top
1. Fatality Number Measure Target—The State DOT target for this measure was 759 and the actual number was 769, so the State DOT did not achieve this target. The FHWA will evaluate significant progress.
Table 3—An Example of the Data for the Fatality Number Measure Target Back to Top
The FHWA calculated the 70 percent prediction interval for this analysis to be ± 15.56.
Therefore, the upper bound for the prediction interval for the fatality number measure in this analysis is 825.66. The actual number of fatalities for 2013-2017 5-year rolling average was 769. In this case, the actual number is at or below the upper bound for the prediction interval, so the State DOT made significant progress for this measure.
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 above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period and after DOT has had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.
In addition, costs associated with the training of law enforcement personnel make up 36 percent of the total costs of the proposed rule. This is estimated to be a one-time incremental cost occurring in 2016 impacting law enforcement agencies ($58,490 per State law enforcement agency, $1,207 per local law enforcement agency, and $1,697 per sheriff's department incurred in 2016 only). These amounts represents less than 3 percent of the unloaded mean wage of a local government law enforcement officer ($57,670 in May 2012); further, law enforcement officers represent about 10 percent of all local government employees.
Table 1—Total Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule Back to Top
** Costs of Section 490.205 Represent one-time start up costs.
Cost of Section 490.205**
$26,336,977
$24,657,655
$25,589,318
KABCO Compliance
Minor Revisions to Database
Convert non-KABCO data
MMUCC Compliance
25,669,624
23,990,303
24,921,965
Modifications to Database Platform
Modifications to PAR Report
23,974,916
22,406,464
23,276,617
Establish 5-Year Rolling Average
Cost of Section 490.209
35,278,769
25,538,819
30,520,482
Establish and Update Performance Targets
Cost of Section 490.211
5,079,514
3,677,135
4,394,406
Total Cost of Proposed Rule
66,695,260
53,873,609
60,504,205
These discrepancies have long been recognized as a problem in collecting and analyzing data at the national level. The proposed rulemaking would establish a single terminology and definition for the performance measures for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP to assess serious injuries and fatalities on all public roads. In addition, the rule would establish the processes that (1) State DOTs and MPOs would use to establish and report safety targets and (2) FHWA would use to assess progress that State DOTs have made toward achieving safety targets. Upon implementation, the FHWA expects that the proposed rule would result in some significant benefits. Specifically, the FHWA expects safety investment decision making to be more informed through the use of consistent and uniform measures, State DOTs to be more accountable to the public for the use of Federal funds to achieve their targets for performance and to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roadways, in the HSIP, and for progress to be made toward the overall achievement of the MAP-21 national goal for safety. Each of these benefits is discussed in further detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, which we have placed in the docket. Although these improvements may lead to more effective policies, it is not appropriate to assume that any reductions in fatalities and serious injuries (post-rule implementation) are solely a result of this rule. Decisions regarding use of highway funding are the result of a multitude of factors (e.g. politics, project priorities, or other studies). In addition, these benefits are amorphous and difficult to quantify. Therefore, for this proposed rulemaking, the FHWA performed a break-even analysis as described in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 that estimates the number of fatalities and incapacitating injuries the rule would need to prevent for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs. Table 2 displays the results from a break-even analysis using fatalities and incapacitating injuries as the reduction metric. The results show that the proposed rule must prevent approximately 7 fatalities or an equivalent 153 incapacitating injuries, nationwide, over 10 years to generate enough benefits to outweigh the cost of the proposed rule. This translates to approximately 1 avoided fatality or an equivalent 15.3 incapacitating injuries per year nationwide.
The FHWA believes that the requirements proposed in this rule would result in the achievement of this break-even threshold based on the actual performance improvements realized after the implementation of strategic highway safety plans which were first required to be developed as part of the previous surface transportation authorization. The FHWA further believes that the proposed requirements in this rule build on the plan requirements and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would be realized such that they outweigh the costs.
Table 2—Break-Even Analysis Using Fatalities and Incapacitating Injuries Reduction Metric Back to Top
Undiscounted 10-year
Reduction in fatalities required for rule to be
Average annual reduction in fatalities
required for rule to be
Reduction in incapacitating injuries
required for rule to
be cost-beneficial
Average annual reduction in incapacitating injuries
b = a ÷ $9,100,000
c = b ÷ 10 years
d = a ÷ $435,208
e = d ÷ 10 years
$66,695,260
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (96, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this NPRM on small entities and anticipates that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule affects three types of entities: State governments, MPOs, and local law enforcement agencies. State governments do not meet the definition of a small entity.
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.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490 Back to Top
PART 490—NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES Back to Top
490.101 Definitions.
490.201 Purpose.
490.203 Applicability.
490.205 Definitions.
490.207 National performance measures for the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
490.209 Establishment of performance targets.
490.211 Determining whether a State DOT has made significant progress toward achieving performance targets.
490.213 Reporting of targets for the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i) and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.
Subpart B—National Performance Measures for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Back to Top
§ 490.201 Purpose.
§ 490.203 Applicability.
§ 490.205 Definitions.
§ 490.207 National performance measures for The Highway Safety Improvement Program.
(c) For purposes of calculating serious injuries performance measures in § 490.207(b)(3) and (4):
(a) State DOTs shall establish targets annually for each performance measure identified in § 490.207(a) in a manner that is consistent with the following: (1) The State DOT targets shall be identical to the targets established by the State Highway Safety Office for common performance measures reported in the State's Highway Safety Plan, subject to the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4), and as coordinated through the State Strategic highway safety plan.
(c) The Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) shall establish performance targets for each of the measures identified in § . 490.207(a), where applicable, in a manner that is consistent with the following:
§ 490.211 Determining whether a State DOT has made significant progress toward achieving performance targets.
§ 490.213 Reporting of targets for the Highway Safety Improvement Program
5. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
8. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/schedule.cfm.
23. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
29. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehrrr.cfm. and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guideolder.cfm.
35. Highway Performance Monitoring System, FHWA Office of Policy Information. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/nahpms.cfm.
37. The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, available at: http://www.mmucc.us/.
39. States With Primary Enforcement Laws Have Lower Fatality Rates, DOT HS 810 923, February 2008, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810921.pdf.
41. BLS data for local governments (May 2012), http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999300.htm#33-0000.