Highway Safety Improvement Program
| Published date | 21 February 2024 |
| Record Number | 2024-02831 |
| Citation | 89 FR 13000 |
| Court | Federal Highway Administration |
| Section | Proposed rules |
Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13000-13013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02831]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 924
[Docket No. FHWA-2023-0045]
RIN 2125-AG07
Highway Safety Improvement Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to
update the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) regulations to
address provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
(also known as the ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'' (BIL)) and reflect
current priorities and state-of-practice. Specifically, FHWA proposes
to amend the regulatory language to incorporate the Safe System
Approach, clarify the scope of the HSIP to focus on the safety of all
road users on the entire public road network, improve evaluation
practices, streamline reporting efforts, and ensure States are
collecting Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data
elements. The proposed changes would clarify provisions regarding the
planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of HSIPs that are
administered in each State. These changes would further strengthen and
advance the safety and equity priorities of the DOT National Roadway
Safety Strategy (NRSS) and assist States with making safety gains
designed to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on the Nation's
roads.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at www.regulations.gov.
All comments should include the docket number that appears in the
heading of this document. All comments received will be available for
examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring
notification of receipt of comments must include a 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 www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Scurry, Office of Safety,
(202) 897-7168, dot.gov">karen.scurry@dot.gov; or Mr. David Serody, Office of
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4241, dot.gov">david.serody@dot.gov, Federal
Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., E.T., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or access all comments received by the DOT online
through: www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and retrieval help
and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the
Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.
[[Page 13001]]
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The FHWA proposes to update the HSIP regulations to reflect the
changes to HSIP made in BIL (Pub. L. 117-58), further strengthen and
advance the Department's safety and equity priorities consistent with
the NRSS,\1\ and assist States with making safety gains designed to
eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on the Nation's roads. The
Department recognizes that the current status of traffic fatalities in
the United States is unacceptable \2\ and has adopted the Safe System
Approach as the guiding paradigm to address roadway safety and achieve
the goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries in the NRSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Roadway Safety Strategy [verbar] U.S. Department of
Transportation https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS.
\2\ USDOT Releases New Data Showing That Road Fatalities Spiked
in First Half of 2021 [verbar] NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe System Approach is a worldwide movement that has been in
place for more than 30 years. The Safe System Approach requires a
paradigm shift in how road safety is addressed for all users. Whereas
traditional road safety strives to modify human behavior and prevent
all crashes, the Safe System Approach refocuses transportation system
design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening
impact forces on the human body to reduce crash severity and save
lives. It is based on a shared responsibility and emphasizes that all
stakeholders have a role to play in ensuring that crashes do not lead
to fatal or serious injuries.
The HSIP is a key place to integrate the Safe System Approach as it
sets the funding and policy tone for national roadway safety
implementation efforts. Therefore, FHWA proposes updates to the HSIP
regulation to include regulatory language to incorporate the Safe
System Approach. The proposed changes are based on the opportunities
identified in the NRSS and informational report on Integrating the Safe
System Approach with the HSIP.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Integrating The Safe System Approach With The Highway Safety
Improvement Program: An Informational Report (dot.gov) FHWA-SA-20-
018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in
Question
The purpose of this NPRM is to update the HSIP regulations to
incorporate the Safe System Approach, clarify the scope of the HSIP to
focus on the safety of all road users on the entire public road
network, improve evaluation practices, streamline reporting efforts,
and ensure States are collecting MIRE fundamental data elements.
Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to amend FHWA's regulations to
incorporate the Safe System Approach by revising the policy of the HSIP
regulation to focus on advancing a Safe System Approach in support of
the long-term goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries,
emphasize how a State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) can
support a Safe System Approach, clarify that a State's SHSP must
include a vulnerable road user safety assessment in accordance with 23
U.S.C. 148(l), and require each State to conduct a systemwide safety
risk assessment as part of its HSIP data analysis process. This
rulemaking also proposes to clarify throughout the regulation that the
HSIP applies to all public roads and for all road users and ensure a
State's HSIP process meet legislative requirements, including those
added by BIL. The FHWA also proposes to improve HSIP evaluation
practices by requiring each State to establish a process to evaluate
the effectiveness of data improvement activities for MIRE fundamental
data elements and clarifying that HSIP evaluation shall include
individual project evaluations, countermeasure evaluations, and program
evaluations. To streamline HSIP reporting efforts, FHWA proposes to
update the required content of the annual HSIP report to minimize
duplication and focus on progress implementing highway safety
improvement projects and the effectiveness of those projects. Finally,
to ensure States are collecting the required MIRE fundamental data
elements, FHWA proposes to require each State to submit MIRE
fundamental data elements as part of their regular Highway Performance
Monitoring System submittal beginning in 2026.
III. Costs and Benefits
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, and DOT guidance, FHWA evaluated
this proposed rule for quantifiable costs, cost savings, and benefits.
The FHWA anticipates increased data collection and reporting
requirements will impose additional burden on State departments of
transportation (States) as well as additional review burden by FHWA.
The FHWA anticipates that cost savings to FHWA and States will result
from changing the focus of the HSIP report.
In accordance with OMB guidance, FHWA estimated the costs and cost
savings over a 10-year analysis period using both a 7 percent and a 3
percent discount rate.\4\ For the 10-year period from 2024 through
2033, FHWA estimated the costs of the proposed rule at $64.9 million,
or $9.2 million on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars and using
a 7 percent discount rate. If a 3 percent discount rate is used these
costs are estimated at $70.3 million for the same 10-year period, or
$8.2 million on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars. The FHWA
also expects the proposed rule to have some cost savings. For the 10-
year period from 2024 through 2033, FHWA estimated the cost savings of
the proposed rule at $227,442, or $32,383 on an annual basis using a 7
percent discount rate. If a 3 percent discount rate is used, these cost
savings are estimated at $276,230 for the same 10-year period, or
$32,383 on an annual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4, Regulatory
Analysis. 68 FR 58366, October 9, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes resulting from the proposed rule are expected to advance
the purpose of the HSIP by increasing safety and resulting in fewer
traffic-related injuries and fatalities. In accordance with OMB
guidance, FHWA follows a break-even analysis approach to calculate the
number of lives that need to be saved in each year for the benefits of
the proposed rule to outweigh the costs. The break-even analysis
concludes that a single life saved annually justifies the proposed
rule.
A supporting analysis and a spreadsheet in the rulemaking docket
(FHWA-2023-0045) contain additional details. The FHWA requests data and
comments that could inform the economic analysis for this rulemaking,
including any estimates of resulting benefits.
Background and Legal Authority
In 2020, an average of approximately 106 people lost their lives on
roads in the U.S. every day.\5\ From 2011 to 2020, traffic fatalities
in the U.S. increased by 20 percent nationally, representing the
highest number of fatalities since 2007.\6\ At the same time, the
number of non-motorist (pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and others)
fatalities increased by 44 percent from 2011 to 2020.\7\ The number of
people dying on U.S. roads is
[[Page 13002]]
unacceptable. Through collective action from all roadway system
stakeholders--from system managers and vehicle manufacturers to law
enforcement and everyday users--we can move to a Safe System Approach
that helps to anticipate human mistakes and keeps impact energy on the
human body to tolerable levels, with the goal of eliminating fatalities
and serious injuries for all road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database, (2020 data based
on FARS data publication, 1st release.) https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
\6\ NHTSA, Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in 2020. (2022,
March). DOT HS 813 266 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266.
\7\ NHTSA, FARS database, (2020 data based on FARS data
publication, 1st release.) https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe System Approach is a worldwide movement that has been in
place for more than 30 years, and it involves a paradigm shift in how
road safety is addressed. Whereas traditional road safety strives to
modify human behavior and prevent all crashes, the Safe System Approach
refocuses transportation system design and operation on anticipating
human mistakes and lessening impact forces on the human body to reduce
crash severity and save lives. It is based on a shared responsibility
and emphasizes that all stakeholders have a role to play in ensuring
that crashes do not lead to fatal or serious injuries. In line with
DOT's and FHWA's top priority of safety, DOT and FHWA fully support the
vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on the Nation's roadway
system and have adopted the Safe System Approach as part of the NRSS.
Implementing the Safe System Approach requires evaluating the current
state-of-practice, evolving the approach for consistency, and
institutionalizing the paradigm shift. The HSIP, which sets the funding
and policy tone for national roadway safety implementation efforts, is
a key place to start.
The HSIP is a core Federal-aid highway program with the purpose of
achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on
all public roads. See 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2). The HSIP requires a data-
driven strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public
roads that focuses on performance. See 23 U.S.C. 148(c). The FHWA
proposes to update the HSIP regulations to address provisions in BIL
and reflect current priorities and state-of-practice. Specifically,
FHWA proposes to incorporate the Safe System Approach, clarify the
scope of a State's HSIP to focus on the safety of all road users on the
entire public road network in support of the long-term goal to
eliminate fatalities and serious injuries, include the vulnerable road
user assessment as part of the State SHSP, improve evaluation
practices, streamline reporting efforts, and ensure States are
collecting MIRE fundamental data elements.
The FHWA's authority to administer the HSIP is provided in 23
U.S.C. 148. In addition, 23 U.S.C. 130 provides authority to fund the
elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings, and 23 U.S.C. 150
directs FHWA to establish performance measures and standards to ensure
the effective administration of the Federal-aid highway program,
including the HSIP. Section 150 of title 23, U.S.C., also requires each
State to set and report on performance targets in relation to the
performance measures developed by FHWA.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The proposed regulatory text follows the same format and section
titles currently in 23 CFR part 924. The FHWA proposes changes in each
section as follows.
Section 924.1 Purpose
The FHWA proposes to revise Sec. 924.1 to state that the purpose
of the regulation is to set forth requirements for the planning
(instead of development) of a HSIP, as well as the requirements for the
reporting of the HSIP in each State for consistency with the existing
structure of the regulation.
Section 924.3 Definitions
The FHWA proposes to revise five definitions to provide clarity or
consistency for each as related to the regulation.
The FHWA proposes to revise the definition for the term ``Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP),'' as used in part 924, to clarify
that the purpose of the program is to significantly reduce fatalities
and serious injuries, consistent with the statutory purpose of the
program. See 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2). The FHWA also proposes revisions to
the HSIP definition to emphasize that these significant reductions
should be continuous and that the program supports the long-term goal
to eliminate such fatalities and serious injuries, consistent with the
Safe System Approach principle that any deaths and serious injuries on
public roads are unacceptable. States carry out the HSIP's purpose by
funding projects each year that advance safety. The FHWA believes it is
important to encourage States to continue to seek reductions in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries year after year, which will support the
ultimate goal of having zero fatalities and serious injuries.
To be clear, FHWA is not requiring that States eliminate all
roadway fatalities and serious injuries, nor is FHWA proposing to hold
States accountable for not eliminating all roadway fatalities and
serious injuries. Instead, FHWA is emphasizing that achieving the
national goal of a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads, which is the purpose of the HSIP,
is ultimately a goal of reducing the incidence of fatalities and
serious injuries to zero.
The FHWA also proposes to clarify that, consistent with 23 U.S.C.
148, the HSIP applies to all road users, in addition to all public
roads. The existing regulation says this in some places but not all.
The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``highway safety
improvement project'' to clarify that a highway safety improvement
project includes strategies, activities or projects for all road users.
While the definition of ``highway safety improvement project'' in 23
U.S.C. 148(a)(4) does not mention ``all road users,'' it does require
that all highway safety improvement projects correct or improve a
hazardous road location or feature or address a highway safety problem.
The FHWA believes that hazardous roadway location and features and
highway safety problems may impact the safety of any road user and,
therefore, to achieve HSIP's purpose of significantly reducing
fatalities and serious injuries, all road users need to be considered
in the implementation of highway safety improvement projects.
The FHWA also proposes to revise this definition to ensure that
highway safety improvement projects advance a Safe System Approach. The
FHWA views the Safe System Approach, as defined further below, as a
means to ensure that highway safety improvement projects correct or
improve a high-risk road location or feature or address a highway
safety need. See 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A).
After consultation with States, FHWA also proposes minor technical
edits to the definition to replace ``hazardous'' with ``high risk'' and
``safety problem'' with ``safety need''. Lastly, FHWA proposes to
clarify that highway safety improvement projects include one or more of
the projects listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B). Section 148(e)(3)(C)(i)
of title 23, U.S.C., requires ``specified safety projects,'' which are
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11), to meet all requirements under 23
U.S.C. 148 that apply to highway safety improvement projects. For
clarity, when the term highway safety improvement project is used in
this regulation, it refers to both highway safety improvement projects
under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) and specified safety projects under 23 U.S.C.
[[Page 13003]]
148(a)(11) as the same requirements apply to both.
The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``railway-highway
crossing protective device'' to replace ``track circuit improvements''
in the current regulation with ``track circuitry.'' The current
regulations suggest that ``track circuit improvements'' are an example
of a system component associated with traffic control devices. The FHWA
is making this revision to make clear that the component associated
with traffic control devices is the track circuitry itself.
The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``safety data'' to
clarify that it also applies to all road users, as reducing traffic
fatalities and serious injuries through the use of safety data requires
a consideration of all affected road users. The FHWA also proposes to
clarify that safety data also includes crash and exposure data for non-
motorized users consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(vi), which
requires States to improve the collection of data on non-motorized
crashes as part of their HSIP.
The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``safety
stakeholder'' to include representatives from public health agencies
and underserved communities. The FHWA proposes to include public health
agencies to emphasize that road traffic crashes are not only a traffic
safety problem, but also a public health problem. In the U.S., motor
vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death, and kill approximately
106 people every day. Public health agencies have implemented various
injury prevention programs and initiatives and their input would add
value to the SHSP update process. The FHWA also proposes to include
representatives from underserved communities to ensure that the needs
of all road users are represented in the planning, implementation, and
evaluation of the HSIP, where appropriate. As described in the National
Roadway Safety Strategy, underserved communities such as racial
minorities and communities with higher poverty rates suffer from
disproportionately higher rates of roadway fatalities compared to the
overall population.\8\ Including members of underserved communities
within the definition of safety stakeholder aligns with the statutory
requirements regarding the SHSP, including the requirements that it
consider high-fatality segments of public roads and describe a program
of strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards. See 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(13)(D) and (a)(13)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Roadway Safety Strategy, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA further proposes to add seven new definitions of terms
used in the revised regulation.
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``non-motorized
user'' because it is used in several places throughout the existing
regulation. The proposed definition is synonymous with the definition
of ``vulnerable road user'' that was added by BIL at 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(15), which includes the types of road users described by the
definitions for ``number of non-motorized fatalities'' and ``number of
non-motorized serious injuries'' in 23 CFR 490.205, i.e., pedestrian,
bicyclist, other cyclist, or person on personal conveyance.
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``road user''
because it would be used more frequently in the proposed updates to the
regulation. The term ``road user'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as
``a motorist, passenger, public transportation operator or user, truck
driver, bicyclist, motorcyclist, or pedestrian, including a person with
disabilities.'' The definition proposed for inclusion in Sec. 924.3
substitutes the words ``non-motorized user'' for ``pedestrian'' and
``bicyclist'' because ``non-motorized user,'' as defined in this NPRM,
is more inclusive of the full range of people who use the Nation's
roads. The FHWA does not view the definition of ``road user'' in 23
U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as limiting the type of road users who the HSIP is
supposed to benefit to the listed groups. Such an interpretation would
mean that a program whose purpose is to achieve a significant reduction
in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads would
not necessarily consider certain types of individuals who may be
involved in traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Instead, for the
purpose of this regulation, FHWA is interpreting ``bicyclist'' and
``pedestrian'' as used in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as referring generally to
``non-motorized users.'' This interpretation will include non-motorized
users, such as users of micromobility devices, who may not be
considered ``bicyclists'' or ``pedestrians'' under strict readings of
those terms but who are equally affected by highway safety problems. In
addition, as noted above, BIL added the term ``vulnerable road user''
to 23 U.S.C. 148(a), and the proposed rule also uses the term ``non-
motorized user'' synonymously with ``vulnerable road user.'' The FHWA
believes that it is appropriate to interpret the statute's reference to
``pedestrian'' and ``bicyclist'' in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) to include the
full range of non-motorized road users because the definition of ``road
user'' at 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) necessarily encompasses ``vulnerable road
user,'' which includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized
users.
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``Safe System
Approach.'' As discussed above, the Safe System Approach aims to
eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users through a
holistic view of the road system that first, anticipates human mistakes
and second, keeps impact energy on the human body at tolerable levels.
Adopting the Safe System Approach provides a substantial opportunity to
eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the Nation's roads and achieve
the purpose of the HSIP. As stated in 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2), the purpose
of the HSIP is to ``achieve a significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads,'' which, if
successfully implemented over time, should lead to the elimination of
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
The FHWA believes that the Safe System Approach, as defined in the
proposed rule, is a data-driven, holistic approach to safety that best
achieves the HSIP's purpose. The FHWA's proposed definition aligns with
the usage of that term in the NRSS, which describes an existing and
widely understood approach to safety, rather than the definition of
``Safe System approach'' in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9), which refers to a type
of roadway design for the purpose of the Vulnerable Road User Safety
Assessment. The proposed definition of ``Safe System Approach'' in
Sec. 924.3, however, is not inconsistent with and would not impact the
definition of ``Safe System approach'' in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9) for the
purposes of conducting a Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment.
Because FHWA is proposing to revise the definition of ``highway
safety improvement project'' to include specified safety projects, FHWA
proposes to add a definition for the term ``specified safety project,''
which would have the same meaning as that term is defined in 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(11).
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``systemwide
safety risk assessment.'' This term would be incorporated into this
regulation, as described in proposed changes to Sec. 924.9. For the
purposes of this regulation, the term systemwide safety risk assessment
means a framework to assign risk ratings to all public roads
considering primarily roadway characteristics, and other
[[Page 13004]]
safety data and analysis results, as appropriate. The risk ratings
shall classify all sections of the roadway network in no fewer than
three categories according to their level of safety. The FHWA believes
that a classification framework with at least three levels of safety is
needed to provide a meaningful way for States to distinguish between
different safety levels to support prioritization of projects that best
improve safety. Such a framework is consistent with the requirements in
23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(v) that States have in place a safety data
system that allows for the identification of highway safety improvement
projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate,
or other data-supported means so a State can consider which projects
maximize opportunities to advance safety. It is also consistent with
the requirements for the SHSP in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(B) to analyze and
make effective use of State, regional, local, or Tribal safety data and
section 148(a)(13)(D) to consider the safety needs of, and high-
fatality segments of, all public roads. This classification framework
may be as simple as high-medium-low, indicating the risk for potential
future crashes, or a star rating system similar to the Roadway Safety
Foundation's United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP),\9\ which
uses a 5-star rating scale for roads, with 1-star indicating the
highest risk. The FHWA welcomes feedback on the appropriate number of
categories for the risk ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ usRAP [verbar] United States Road Assessment Program, http://www.usrap.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``underserved
communities'' to emphasize the importance of equity in the HSIP. As
discussed above and explained in the NRSS, underserved communities face
disproportionate safety impacts. Eliminating traffic fatalities and
serious injuries therefore requires a commitment to considering equity.
The definition of ``underserved community'' is consistent with how that
term is defined in E.O. 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See E.O. 13985 of Jan. 20, 2021, Advancing Racial Equity
and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal
Government, Sec. 2, 86 FR 7009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add the term ``vulnerable road user safety
assessment,'' which adopts the definition of that term in 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(16). This is a new requirement under BIL and would be
incorporated into this regulation in proposed changes to Sec. 924.9.
The FHWA proposes to retain all other definitions unchanged.
Section 924.5 Policy
The FHWA proposes to revise paragraph 924.5(a) to state that ``Each
State shall plan [instead of develop], implement, evaluate, as well as
report. . .'' to mirror the structure of 23 CFR 924.9 through 924.15.
The FHWA also proposes to require States to advance a Safe System
Approach as part of the State's HSIP. The adoption of a Safe System
Approach in State HSIPs supports the Department's NRSS key action to
improve State strategic highway safety plans and ensure that State
safety performance targets demonstrate constant or improved performance
for each safety performance measure.\11\ The FHWA views the Safe System
Approach as the optimal approach to safety that can guide how States
view safety throughout the HSIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NRSS, p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to revise the policy statement under
paragraph (a) to emphasize that the objective of the State's HSIP
supports the long-term goal to eliminate fatalities and serious
injuries. The FHWA also proposes, for the reasons explained above, to
clarify that the HSIP applies to all road users in addition to all
public roads.
The FHWA proposes to revise paragraph (b) to clarify that HSIP
funds shall be used, rather than should be used, to maximize
opportunities to advance highway safety improvement projects that have
the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway fatalities and
serious injuries. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(v), States must consider
which projects maximize opportunities to advance safety. At the same
time, under 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C)(ii), States must adopt strategic and
performance-based goals that focus resources on areas of greatest need.
The FHWA interprets these provisions in unison as requiring States to
focus resources on projects that maximize opportunities to advance
safety.
In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes minor technical edits to the first
sentence to clarify that the policy statement in this paragraph, which
elaborates on the statement in 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(2)(B), applies to any
other Federal-aid program and updates the title of the Surface
Transportation Block Grant Program for consistency with the name used
in current legislation.
The FHWA proposes a minor technical edit to paragraph (d) to
clarify that Tribal and local jurisdictions are distinct categories of
governmental entities.
Section 924.7 Program Structure
The FHWA proposes to redesignate existing paragraph 924.7(b) as
paragraph (c) and inserting a new paragraph (b) that would clarify the
relationship between the safety performance targets and performance-
based goals in the SHSP. Specifically, the safety performance targets
must align with and support the SHSP performance-based goals, as is
currently required in 23 CFR 490.209(a).
In paragraph (c) (as redesignated), besides a minor technical edit,
FHWA proposes to clarify in the first sentence that a State's HSIP must
apply to all road users. Similar to what is stated above, FHWA believes
that the purpose of the HSIP can only be carried out by addressing all
road users, as traffic fatalities and serious injuries can occur to any
road user. The FHWA also proposes to clarify that the State shall not
only have HSIP processes, but those processes shall be documented and
approved by the FHWA Division Administrator. The FHWA proposes this
change to improve stewardship and oversight of the program. This
proposed change is also consistent with the requirement for the
Division Administrator to approve the SHSP update process pursuant to
existing 23 CFR 924.9(a)(3)(iii).
Section 924.9 Planning
In paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), FHWA proposes to add ``and for all
road users'' to the end to clarify that the process for collecting
safety data and advancing safety data collection efforts shall address
all road users, in addition to all public roads. The HSIP requires a
data-driven, strategic approach to improve highway safety on all public
roads. The FHWA believes that this can only be achieved by considering
data on all those who use public roads.
In paragraph (a)(1), FHWA proposes to add a new subparagraph
structure (i) through (iii). Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would require
safety data to be able to differentiate between vulnerable road users
other road users under subparagraph (i)(A), consistent with 23 U.S.C.
148(c)(2)(A)(vi), and also disaggregate safety data by demographic
variables to support the inclusion of equity in the State's HSIP in
subparagraph (i)(B).
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require States to collect any
additional roadway data beyond the MIRE fundamental data elements, if
necessary to support the proposed systemwide
[[Page 13005]]
safety risk assessment. While States can conduct a systemwide risk
assessment with the MIRE fundamental data elements and other asset-
related data, other roadway data would add value to the process.
The language in proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) is unchanged from
the existing rule.
The FHWA proposes various updates to the SHSP provisions in
paragraph (a)(3). Under 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1) and 148(d)(2)(B), FHWA is
authorized to establish requirements for the contents of SHSP updates
and State's processes for updating the SHSP.
In the introductory language to paragraph (a)(3) and in proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(vi), FHWA proposes a minor technical edit to change
``safety problem'' to ``safety need.'' The FHWA also proposes to
require the SHSP update to include a signature and effective date in
paragraph (a)(3)(iv). The effective date would also be referenced in
paragraph (a)(3)(i) to clarify that the timeline for updating the SHSP.
Section 924.9(a)(3)(i) of 23 CFR currently requires that an SHSP update
must be completed no later than 5 years from the date of the previous
approved version. The FHWA believes that a reference to ``5 years from
the date of the previous approved version'' is not clear, and FHWA is
revising the text to clarify that an SHSP update must be completed no
later than 5 years from the effective date of the previous approved
version. To implement this change, FHWA is requiring that the SHSP
update include an effective date, which FHWA is proposing to make in 23
CFR 924.9(a)(3)(iv). The FHWA is also proposing to require the
signature of the Governor of a State or a responsible State official
that is delegated by the Governor. The signature demonstrates approval
as required by 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(H), and including an effective date
will enable better tracking of SHSP updates.
In proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v), FHWA proposes to clarify that the
performance-based goals must be adopted for the duration of the SHSP.
For example, if the SHSP covers a 5-year period, then the SHSP
performance-based goals would also cover a 5-year period. Connecting
the duration of performance-based goals to the duration of the overall
SHSP is consistent with the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(B) for
the SHSP to analyze and make effective use of State, regional, local,
or Tribal safety data. In addition, the current provision only requires
States to adopt performance-based goals that are consistent with safety
performance measures established by FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
150 without acknowledging that SHSPs cover multiple years. The FHWA is
proposing this revision to rectify this issue.
The FHWA proposes changes to paragraphs (a)(3)(vi) through
(a)(3)(xi) to advance the Safe System Approach and ensure equity is
addressed in SHSP updates. Specifically, in paragraph (a)(3)(vi) FHWA
proposes to emphasize that the analysis and use of safety data also
addresses safety needs and opportunities in underserved communities to
ensure the safety needs of all road users are met. Ensuring that SHSP
updates address the safety needs of underserved communities is
necessary to implement 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(B)(ii)-(iii), which require
that SHSP updates take into consideration the locations of fatalities
and serious injuries and locations that possess risk factors for
potential crashes (regardless of whether there is a documented history
of fatalities and serious injuries). Further, paragraph (a)(3)(vi)
currently requires that an SHSP update must ``[a]nalyze and make
effective use of safety data to address safety problems and
opportunities on all public roads and for all road users.'' The FHWA is
proposing this revision to highlight that ``all road users,'' as used
in the current regulations, must necessarily include road users in
underserved communities.
In paragraph (a)(3)(vii), FHWA proposes to require that SHSP
emphasis areas and strategies are consistent with the Safe System
Approach. A key aspect of the SHSP is that it evaluates highway safety
holistically to identify which strategies and projects can best advance
the goal of eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. See 23
U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(C) (defining the SHSP, in part, as a plan that
``addresses engineering, management, operation, education, enforcement,
and emergency services elements . . . of highway safety as key factors
in evaluating highway safety.''). This corresponds to the Safe System
Approach's focus on holistically integrating the elements of safe road
users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care to
reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries to zero. In addition,
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) currently requires that an SHSP update must
``[i]dentify key emphasis areas and strategies that have the greatest
potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries and focus
resources on areas of greatest need.'' The FHWA believes that the Safe
System Approach provides the appropriate framework to determine what
``greatest potential'' and ``greatest need'' mean.
The FHWA proposes to add equity to the list of elements to address
as a key feature in the identification of SHSP strategies in paragraph
(a)(3)(viii). This will ensure that the SHSP considers the safety needs
of all public roads and considers the results of State and regional
planning processes, which must consider the needs of underserved
communities. See 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(D)-(E); 23 CFR
450.210(a)(1)(viii) and 450.316(a)(1)(vii).
The FHWA also proposes to add a new requirement under proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(ix) for States to describe in the SHSP update how the
SHSP supports a Safe System Approach. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
148(d)(1)(B)(viii), FHWA must ensure that States take into
consideration, with respect to updated SHSPs, safety on all public
roads. The FHWA is proposing to carry out this requirement, in part, by
having States identify key emphasis areas and strategies that are
consistent with a Safe System Approach and describing how the SHSP
supports a Safe System Approach, as FHWA considers the Safe System
Approach to be the optimal method for considering safety.
The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (a)(3)(x) to include the
vulnerable road user safety assessment as part of the State SHSP,
consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(G). The FHWA proposes to modify
redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(xi) (current paragraph (a)(3)(ix)) to
require public involvement as part of the SHSP update process. Public
involvement would help ensure the needs of all road users are addressed
in the SHSP update and, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(I),
ensure the SHSP is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 135(g), which includes a
requirement for public involvement in the development of the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Plan.
In redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(xii) (current paragraph
(a)(3)(x)), FHWA proposes to separate Tribal from local governments
since they are distinct units of government. The FHWA also proposes to
clarify that the SHSP update shall provide strategic direction for not
only other State, Tribal, and local plans as stated in the current
regulation, but also programs such as the HSIP because the HSIP is a
program, not a plan. The FHWA also proposes to add a Traffic Records
Strategic Plan (TRSP) to the list of plans and programs for which the
SHSP update provides strategic direction. A TRSP describes the desired
future of the data systems a State uses to support data driven safety
decisions
[[Page 13006]]
and how to get there.\12\ Many State SHSPs include a data emphasis area
and include relevant strategies and actions that could be advanced
through the TRSP. Including the TSRP in the list of plans that the SHSP
must provide strategic direction to furthers the requirement in 23
U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C) that a State HSIP advances the State's capabilities
for safety data collection, analysis, and integration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NHTSA, State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
Strategic Planning Guide (2019), p. viii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to relocate existing paragraph (a)(3)(xi) to
Sec. 924.11(c)(i) because it is more relevant to implementation.
Proposed revisions to this language are discussed under the heading for
Sec. 924.11.
In paragraph (a)(4), FHWA proposes to require States to develop a
process to conduct a systemwide safety risk assessment to implement 23
U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B). That provision requires States to (i) identify
hazardous locations, sections, and elements that constitute a danger to
motorists, vulnerable road users, and other highway users; (ii)
establish the relative severity of those locations; (iii) identify the
number of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by
location in the State; (iv) identify highway safety improvement
projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate,
or other data-supported means; and (v) consider which projects maximize
opportunities to advance safety. Requiring a systemwide safety risk
assessment aligns with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B), as it would require
States to assign risk ratings to all public roads after considering
safety data. The systemwide safety risk assessment would allow States
to establish a base level of safety performance for all roads (23
U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(i), (iii)), develop safety infrastructure key
performance indicators (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(ii)), and prioritize
investments to improve safety through not only the State HSIP but all
Federal-aid programs and projects (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(iv), (v)).
The FHWA also proposes to revise paragraph (a)(4)(i) to emphasize
that the program of highway safety improvement projects would need to
have the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries
on all public roads and for all road users, consistent with the Safe
System Approach for similar reasons as described above for the proposed
changes to Sec. 924.5(b).
Consistent with changes described above for proposed paragraphs
(a)(3)(vii) and (viii), FHWA also proposes adding a new statement to
require that the program of highway safety improvement projects shall
advance the Safe System Approach and address fatalities and serious
injuries in underserved communities to advance equity.
The remainder of paragraph (a)(4) and paragraph (a)(5) remains
unchanged.
In paragraph (a)(6), FHWA proposes revising existing item (i) to
require States to consider which projects maximize the potential
reduction of fatalities and serious injuries as part of their process
for establishing priorities for implementing highway safety improvement
projects consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(v). The FHWA also
proposes removing existing item (iii), which currently requires States
to consider SHSP priorities in their process for establishing
priorities for implementing highway safety improvement projects because
all projects must be consistent with the SHSP. This item is more
related to eligibility than prioritization. Prioritization of highway
safety improvement projects would be based on which projects maximize
the potential reduction in fatalities and serious injuries and the cost
effectiveness of the projects and the resources available.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) would remain unchanged.
Section 924.11 Implementation
Paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) would remain unchanged.
In paragraph (b), FHWA proposes to remove the requirement that
States shall incorporate specific quantifiable and measurable
anticipated improvements for the collection of MIRE fundamental data
elements into their Traffic Records Strategic Plan by July 1, 2017,
since the date for that requirement has passed. The FHWA also proposes
to require each State to submit the MIRE fundamental data elements as
part of their regular Highway Performance Monitoring System
submissions, beginning after September 30, 2026, and continuing
thereafter. The FHWA would expect each State to submit new data as it
becomes available or on a schedule of the State's selection. There
would be no expectation for States to update this data annually. This
requirement would help FHWA ensure that States adopt and use the subset
of MIRE fundamental data elements per 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2)(B).
In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes to relocate and revise the
requirement from existing Sec. 924.9(a)(3)(xi) to be consistent with
existing FHWA guidance and the current state-of-practice for the SHSP
action plans.
In paragraph (d), FHWA proposes minor technical edits to better
track the language in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2).
The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (g) to encourage States to
use the various options available to them to streamline delivery of
highway safety improvement projects. It is imperative that highway
safety improvement projects be completed in a timely manner to realize
their benefits.
The FHWA also proposes to redesignate existing paragraph (g) as new
paragraph (h) without change.
Section 924.13 Evaluation
Under Sec. 924.13(a), FHWA proposes to add new subparagraph (a)(1)
that requires a State's HSIP evaluation process to include a process to
evaluate the effectiveness of data improvement activities for MIRE
fundamental data elements. The FHWA proposes this requirement to
address 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(ii), which requires the State's safety
data system to evaluate the effectiveness of data improvement efforts.
This provision would apply only to MIRE fundamental data elements since
that is a specific requirement of the HSIP under 23 U.S.C.
148(f)(2)(B). States would be required to establish and track
quantifiable measures related to data quality attributes of accuracy,
completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and integration.
The FHWA proposes minor technical modifications to what would be
redesignated as paragraph (a)(2) (current paragraph (a)(1)) to clarify
that a State must have processes for evaluating individual highway
safety improvement projects and countermeasures, as well as a process
for evaluating the program of highway safety improvement projects. This
is not an additional requirement but a clarification of an existing
one. The existing regulation requires that States have a process to
analyze and assess the results achieved by the program of highway
safety improvement projects; however, to assess and analyze the program
of highway safety improvement projects, States must first assess and
analyze the individual projects and countermeasures that make it up.
This change is also consistent with current law, FHWA practice, and
existing FHWA guidance. Per 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(F) and 148(h)(1)(B),
States must have an evaluation process to analyze and assess results
achieved by highway safety improvement projects and assess the
effectiveness of those projects as part of their annual HSIP report.
The FHWA proposes a minor technical modification to what would be
redesignated as paragraph (a)(3)(i) (current paragraph (a)(2)(i)) to
clarify that a State should be confirming the effectiveness of SHSP
strategies as part
[[Page 13007]]
of its process for updating the SHSP. Effective implementation of the
SHSP requires a State to understand whether a particular strategy is
working, or if it needs to be updated for future implementation.
Apart from minor technical edits, the remaining paragraphs in Sec.
924.13 would remain unchanged.
Section 924.15 Reporting
The FHWA proposes the following changes to the content of the HSIP
report.
In the introductory text to paragraph (a), rather than require the
usage of a specific tool, FHWA proposes to change the reporting
mechanism to a more general electronic template provided by FHWA. This
gives FHWA the flexibility to use the existing HSIP online reporting
tool, or another electronic means for States to submit reports if
deemed more effective by FHWA.
In paragraph (a)(1), to minimize duplication with other HSIP
documentation efforts, FHWA proposes to change the focus of the report
to describe progress being made to implement the HSIP and the
effectiveness of previously completed highway safety improvement
projects. As such, FHWA proposes to remove paragraphs (a)(1)(i), which
currently discusses the structure of the HSIP, and (a)(1)(ii), which
currently discusses the progress in implementing highway safety
improvement projects. This information would be captured in the HSIP
process documentation under Sec. 924.7(c) and, if applicable, the HSIP
implementation plan under 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2).
In redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) (current paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(A)), FHWA proposes minor technical edits to remove the word
``total'' in the last sentence to clarify that a State must report the
number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries separately
because FHWA uses the serious injury data from the HSIP report to
support the safety performance target assessment. This proposed change
is also consistent with current reporting practice. The FHWA also
proposes to require reporting information on fatalities and serious
injuries for older drivers and pedestrians consistent with the special
rule in 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(2) and existing paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C).
The FHWA proposes to remove existing paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(B) and
(a)(1)(iii)(C). The safety performance targets previously reported
under existing paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) would be reported separately
with the other performance measures required under 23 CFR part 490.
Consistent with current guidance, to carry out the special rules in 23
U.S.C. 148(g), FHWA only requires that States report information on the
number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorized users and
older drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65. By revising paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(A) to require this information, existing paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(C) becomes redundant.
The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) that would
require a State to discuss the progress made implementing the
priorities and actions identified in the State's HSIP implementation
plan under 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2) for those States that did not meet or
make significant progress toward meeting their safety performance
targets.
The FHWA proposes to revise redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
(current paragraph (a)(1)(iv)) to require States to report the results
of individual projects, countermeasures, and program evaluations.
States are currently required to report the results of countermeasure
and program evaluations on an aggregated basis (i.e., groupings or
similar types of highway safety improvement projects). This revision
would also require States to report the results of individual project
evaluations. While it is currently optional for States to report this
information, nearly half of the States already do so, and, as noted
above when discussing proposed changes to Sec. 924.13(a)(2), all
States are necessarily required to have processes in place for
individual project evaluations. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(h), FHWA is
responsible for establishing the content of State reporting on the
effectiveness of States' HSIPs, including reporting on the
effectiveness of projects funded under section 148, and making this
reporting available to the public in the interests of transparency.
Requiring States to report information for individual projects will
help FHWA ensure States are meeting this requirement, emphasize the
importance of monitoring the effectiveness of HSIP implementation
efforts, and support national program evaluations.
The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) for States to
report on results from the new provision in Sec. 924.13(a)(1).
Specifically, each State would be required to report quantifiable
progress in the quality attributes of accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and integration of MIRE
fundamental data elements.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to make technical amendments to paragraph
(a)(1)(iv) to match the structure of revised paragraph (a)(1) and to
correct an error in a statutory citation. The remaining provisions in
Sec. 924.15 would remain unchanged.
Section 924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements
The FHWA proposes to add language to clarify the exception in 23
U.S.C. 148(k) to MIRE fundamental data element collection requirements,
which states that, subject to the conditions of 23 U.S.C. 148(k)(1),
``[a] State may elect not to collect fundamental data elements for the
model inventory of roadway elements on public roads that are gravel
roads or otherwise unpaved.'' The FHWA also proposes to simplify the
presentation of tables 1, 2, and 3 in the regulation. In general, the
content in the tables would remain the same except for citation updates
to reference MIRE Version 2.0, or the most current version.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The FHWA may issue updates to MIRE between the time that
this NPRM and a Final Rule are issued. The tables in the Final Rule
will reference the most current version of MIRE at the time the
Final Rule is issued. The FHWA does not anticipate that changes that
may be made to MIRE as a result of any updates will have a
substantive impact in terms of complying with 23 CFR part 924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The FHWA anticipates that the proposed rule will not be a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, as
amended by E.O. 14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), and DOT
Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures in DOT Order 2100.6A (June 7, 2021).
This action complies with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 to improve
regulation. The FHWA anticipates that the proposed rule would not have
an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. The FHWA
anticipates that the proposed rule would not adversely affect, in a
material way, any sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local,
territorial, or Tribal governments or communities. In addition, these
changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another
agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. The proposed rule
also does not raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review
would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
set forth E.O. 12866.
[[Page 13008]]
The following paragraphs summarize the economic analysis for this
proposed rule. A supporting statement and a spreadsheet in the
rulemaking docket (FHWA-2023-0045) contain additional details. The FHWA
requests data and comments that could inform the economic analysis for
this proposed rule, including any estimates of resulting benefits.
Table 1 summarizes the economic impacts of the proposed rule that
were able to be quantified at this stage of the regulatory process. The
quantifiable impacts are the costs and cost savings that the proposed
rule would impose on States and on FHWA. The FHWA estimated the costs
of the proposed rule at $64.9 million for the 10-year period, or $9.2
million on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars and using a 7
percent discount rate. If a 3 percent discount rate is used, these
costs are estimated at $70.3 million for the same 10-year period, or
$8.2 million on an annual basis, again measured in 2022 dollars. The
FHWA estimated the cost savings of the proposed rule at $227,442, or
$32,383 on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars and using 7
percent discounting. If a 3 percent discount rate is used, these cost
savings are estimated at $276,230 for the same 10-year period, or
$32,383 on an annual basis, again measured in 2022 dollars. Based on
the estimated economic impacts and the other criteria for a significant
regulatory action under Sec. 3(f) of E.O. 12866, FHWA has
preliminarily determined that this proposed rule would not be a
significant regulatory action.
Table 1--Estimated Costs, Cost Savings, and Net Costs of the Highway Safety Improvement Program Proposed Rule
[2022 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs of the HSIP proposed rule (2022 dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
Calendar year period year Costs Cost savings Net costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024............................................ 1 $57,057,401 $32,383 $57,025,018
2025............................................ 2 108,615 32,383 76,232
2026............................................ 3 1,764,627 32,383 1,732,244
2027............................................ 4 108,615 32,383 76,232
2028............................................ 5 7,946,874 32,383 7,914,491
2029............................................ 6 108,615 32,383 76,232
2030............................................ 7 108,615 32,383 76,232
2031............................................ 8 108,615 32,383 76,232
2032............................................ 9 108,615 32,383 76,232
2033............................................ 10 7,946,874 32,383 7,914,491
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total to FHWA............................................... 244,363 47,824 196,539
Total to State DOTs......................................... 75,123,101 276,002 74,847,098
Undiscounted Total.......................................... 75,367,464 323,826 75,043,638
Total with 3% Discounting................................... 70,325,827 276,230 70,049,597
Total with 7% Discounting................................... 64,910,972 227,442 64,683,530
Average Annual (Undiscounted)............................... 7,536,746 32,383 7,504,364
Annualized, 3% Discount Rate, 10 Years...................... 8,244,332 32,383 8,211,950
Annualized, 7% Discount Rate, 10 Years...................... 9,241,862 32,383 9,209,479
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main purpose of the HSIP is to achieve significant reductions
in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. Changes
resulting from the proposed rule are expected to increase safety and
result in fewer traffic related injuries and fatalities. In accordance
with OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003), FHWA
follows a break-even analysis approach to calculate the number of
annual lives that need to be saved for the benefits of the proposed
rule to outweigh the costs. The break-even analysis concludes that a
single life saved annually justifies the proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule
on small entities and has determined that the action is not anticipated
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule affects State governments, and State
governments do not meet the definition of a small entity. Therefore,
FHWA certifies that the action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The FHWA has evaluated this proposed rule for unfunded mandates as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us
to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated
impacts, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183
million, using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. As part of this evaluation, FHWA has determined
that this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of greater than $183 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C.
1532).
Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed
in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. In addition, the
definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or
Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal
[[Page 13009]]
Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of
flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed rulemaking
would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the
States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under E.O. 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and
would not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under E.O. 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a
significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211 is
not required.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Local entities should refer to the Assistance Listing Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) prior to conducting or sponsoring a
``collection of information'' as defined by the PRA. The FHWA currently
has OMB approval under ``Highway Safety Improvement Programs'' (OMB
Control No. 2125-0025) to collect the information required by State's
annual HSIP reports. The FHWA also has OMB approval under ``Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)'' (OMB Control No. 2125-0028). The
FHWA invites comments about the intention to request OMB approval for a
new information collection to include the components required in this
NPRM. Any action that might be contemplated in subsequent phases of
this proceeding will be analyzed for the purpose of the PRA for its
impact to this current information collection. The FHWA will submit the
proposed collections of information to OMB for review and approval at
the time the NPRM is issued and, accordingly, seeks comments.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect
a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications
under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23
CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of regulations,
and that no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
The E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal Agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 924
Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor vehicles, Railroads,
Railroad safety, Safety, Transportation.
Shailen P. Bhatt,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FHWA proposes to revise
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 924, as follows:
PART 924--HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 924 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, 150, and 315; 49 CFR
1.85.
0
2. Revise Sec. 924.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 924.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the
planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of a Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) in each State.
0
3. Amend Sec. 924.3 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)'', and ``Highway safety improvement project'';
0
b. Adding a definition of ``Non-motorized user or vulnerable road
user'' in alphabetical order;
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Railway-highway crossing protective
devices'';
0
d. Adding the definitions of ``Road user'' and ``Safe System Approach''
in alphabetical order;
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Safety data'';
0
f. In the definition of ``Safety stakeholder'', redesignating paragraph
(10) as paragraph (12) and adding paragraphs (10) and (11); and
0
g. Adding the definitions of ``Specified safety project'', ``Systemwide
safety risk assessment'', ``Underserved communities'', and ``Vulnerable
road user safety assessment'' in alphabetical order.
The revisions and additions read as follows: Sec. 924.3
Definitions.
* * * * *
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) means a State safety
program with the purpose to significantly reduce fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads and for all road users, in support of the
long-term goal to eliminate such fatalities and serious injuries,
through the implementation of the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130, 148, and
150, including the development of a data-driven Strategic
[[Page 13010]]
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and
program of highway safety improvement projects.
Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities, or
projects on a public road and for all road users that advance a Safe
System Approach, are consistent with a State SHSP, either correct or
improve a high risk road segment, location, or feature, or address a
highway safety need, and are either (1) one or more of the projects
listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B) or (2) a specified safety project.
Non-motorized user or vulnerable road user means a pedestrian,
bicyclist, other cyclist, or person on personal conveyance, consistent
with the definition for the number of non-motorized fatalities and the
number of non-motorized serious injuries in Sec. 490.205 of this
title.
* * * * *
Railway-highway crossing protective devices means those traffic
control devices in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) specified for use at such crossings; and system components
associated with such traffic control devices, such as track circuitry
and interconnections with highway traffic signals.
* * * * *
Road user means a motorist, passenger, public transportation
operator or user, truck driver, motorcyclist, or non-motorized user,
including a person with disabilities.
Safe System Approach means a data-driven, holistic approach to
roadway safety that:
(1) Aims to eliminate death and serious injury for all road users;
(2) Anticipates and accommodates human errors;
(3) Keeps crash impact energy on the human body within tolerable
levels;
(4) Proactively identifies safety risks in the system;
(5) Builds in redundancy through layers of protection so if one
part of the system fails the other parts provide protection; and
(6) Shares responsibility for achieving zero roadway fatalities
among all who design, build, manage, own, and use the system.
Safety data include, but are not limited to, crash, roadway
characteristics, and traffic data on all public roads and for all road
users. Safety data shall include crash and exposure data for non-
motorized users. For railway-highway crossings, safety data also
include the characteristics of highway and train traffic, licensing,
and vehicle data.
Safety stakeholder means, but is not limited to:
* * * * *
(10) Representatives from public health agencies;
(11) Representatives from underserved communities; and
(12) Other Federal, State, Tribal, and local safety stakeholders.
Specified safety project has the same meaning as defined under 23
U.S.C. 148(a)(11).
* * * * *
Systemwide safety risk assessment means a framework to assign risk
ratings to all public roads considering primarily roadway
characteristics, and other safety data and analysis results, as
appropriate. The risk ratings shall classify all sections of the
roadway network in no fewer than three categories according to their
level of safety.
* * * * *
Underserved communities mean populations sharing a particular
characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been
systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of
economic, social, and civic life. Underserved communities include
Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of
religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural
areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality.
Vulnerable road user safety assessment means an assessment of the
safety performance of the State with respect to vulnerable road users
and the plan of the State to improve the safety of vulnerable road
users as described in 23 U.S.C. 148(l).
0
4. Revise and republish Sec. 924.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 924.5 Policy.
(a) Each State shall plan, implement, evaluate, and report on an
annual basis an HSIP that advances a Safe System Approach and has the
purpose to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries
resulting from crashes on all public roads and for all road users, in
support of the long-term goal to eliminate such fatalities and serious
injuries.
(b) HSIP funds shall be used for highway safety improvement
projects that are consistent with the State's SHSP. HSIP funds shall be
used to maximize opportunities to advance highway safety improvement
projects that have the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway
fatalities and serious injuries.
(c) Safety improvements should be incorporated into projects funded
by all Federal-aid programs, such as the National Highway Performance
Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG)
Program. Safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader
Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the
broader project.
(d) Eligibility for Federal funding of projects for traffic control
devices under this part is subject to a State, Tribal, or local
jurisdiction's substantial conformance with the National MUTCD or FHWA-
approved State MUTCDs and supplements in accordance with part 655,
subpart F, of this chapter.
0
5. Amend Sec. 924.7 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 924.7 Program structure.
* * * * *
(b) Part 490, subpart B of this chapter establishes national
performance management measures for the purposes of carrying out the
HSIP. The safety performance targets established under Sec. 490.209 of
this chapter shall align with and support the performance-based goals
established for the SHSP in this section.
(c) The HSIP shall address all public roads and all road users in
the State. The HSIP shall document separate processes for the planning,
implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP components described in
paragraph (a) of this section. These documented processes shall be
developed by the State and approved by the FHWA Division Administrator
in accordance with this section and the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148.
Where appropriate, the processes shall be developed in consultation
with other safety stakeholders and officials of the various units of
local and Tribal governments.
0
6. In Sec. 924.9 revise and republish paragraph (a):
Sec. 924.9 Planning.
(a) The HSIP planning process shall incorporate:
(1) A process for collecting and maintaining safety data on all
public roads and for all road users.
(i) Safety data shall:
(A) Differentiate between vulnerable road users, including
bicyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians, from other road users.
(B) Be disaggregated by demographic variables to support the
inclusion of
[[Page 13011]]
underserved communities in the State's Highway Safety Improvement
Program.
(ii) Roadway data shall include:
(A) The MIRE Fundamental Data Elements as established in Sec.
924.17; and
(B) Any additional elements necessary to support a systemwide
safety risk assessment.
(iii) Railway-highway crossing data shall include all fields from
the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.
(2) A process for advancing the State's capabilities for safety
data collection and analysis by improving the timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of their
safety data on all public roads and for all road users.
(3) A process for updating the SHSP that identifies and analyzes
highway safety needs and opportunities in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
148. A SHSP update shall:
(i) Be completed no later than 5 years from the effective date of
the previous approved version;
(ii) Be developed by the State DOT in consultation with safety
stakeholders;
(iii) Provide a detailed description of the update process. The
update process must be approved by the FHWA Division Administrator;
(iv) Be approved, including signature and effective date, by the
Governor of the State or a responsible State agency official who is
delegated by the Governor;
(v) Adopt performance-based goals for the duration of the SHSP
that:
(A) Are consistent with safety performance measures established by
FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and
(B) Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;
(vi) Analyze and make effective use of safety data to address
safety needs and opportunities on all public roads and for all road
users, including in underserved communities;
(vii) Identify key emphasis areas and strategies that are
consistent with a Safe System Approach, have the greatest potential to
reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, and focus
resources on areas of greatest need;
(viii) Address engineering, management, operations, education,
enforcement, emergency services, and equity elements of highway safety
as key features when determining SHSP strategies;
(ix) Describe how the SHSP supports a Safe System Approach;
(x) Include a vulnerable road user safety assessment;
(xi) Consider the results of State, regional, local, and Tribal
transportation and highway safety planning processes; demonstrate
mutual consultation among safety stakeholders; and consider input from
public involvement (as defined in Sec. 450.210 of this chapter) in the
development of transportation safety plans; and
(xii) Provide strategic direction for other State, Tribal, and
local transportation plans and programs, including but not limited to
the HSIP, the Highway Safety Plan, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan,
and the Traffic Records Strategic Plan.
(4) A process for analyzing safety data and conducting a systemwide
safety risk assessment to:
(i) Develop a program of highway safety improvement projects, in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), that has the greatest potential to
reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads and for all
road users through the implementation of a comprehensive program of
systemic and spot safety improvement projects. The program of highway
safety improvement projects shall also advance the Safe System Approach
and address fatalities and serious injuries in underserved communities.
(ii) Develop a Railway-Highway Crossings program that:
(A) Considers the relative risk of public railway-highway crossings
based on a hazard index formula;
(B) Includes onsite inspection of public railway-highway crossings;
and
(C) Results in a program of highway safety improvement projects at
railway-highway crossings giving special emphasis to the statutory
requirement that all public crossings be provided with standard signing
and markings.
(5) A process for conducting engineering studies (such as road
safety audits and other safety assessments or reviews) to develop
highway safety improvement projects.
(6) A process for establishing priorities for implementing highway
safety improvement projects that considers:
(i) Which projects maximize the potential reduction in fatalities
and serious injuries; and
(ii) The cost effectiveness of the projects and the resources
available.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 924.11 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising and republishing paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h); and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (g).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 924.11 Implementation.
* * * * *
(b) Each State shall have a complete collection of the MIRE
fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.
Starting after September 30, 2026, and continuing thereafter, each
State shall submit the MIRE fundamental data elements as part of their
regular Highway Performance Monitoring System submittal to FHWA.
(c) The SHSP shall include or be accompanied by actions that
address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies will be implemented. This
includes a description of the related actions or projects, agency
responsible for implementing each action, potential resources, and
timeframe for implementing the strategies in each emphasis area.
(d) Funds set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program under
23 U.S.C. 130 shall be used to implement railway-highway crossing
safety projects on any public road. If a State demonstrates that it has
met all its needs for installation of protective devices at railway-
highway crossings to the satisfaction of the FHWA Division
Administrator, the State may use funds made available under 23 U.S.C.
130 for other Highway Safety Improvement Program purposes pursuant to
the special rule in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2).
* * * * *
(g) States should use timesaving procedures, such as project
bundling, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting (part
635, subpart F of this chapter), and other methods approved by FHWA to
streamline HSIP project delivery. States and other Federal funding
recipients can also use agency force account procedures (part 635,
subpart B of this chapter) if they can demonstrate it is more cost
effective than competitive bidding.
(h) Except as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120 and 130, the Federal share
of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with
funds apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) shall be 90
percent.
0
8. Amend Sec. 924.13 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) as paragraphs (a)(2) and
(3), respectively, and adding new paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i); and
0
c. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (b).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 924.13 Evaluation.
(a) * * *
[[Page 13012]]
(1) A process to establish and track quantifiable measures to
evaluate the effectiveness of data improvement activities to improve
accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and
integration for MIRE fundamental data elements.
(2) A process to analyze and assess the results achieved by
individual highway safety improvement projects, countermeasures, and
the program of highway safety improvement projects in terms of
contributions to improved safety outcomes and the attainment of safety
performance targets established as per 23 U.S.C. 150.
(3) An evaluation of the SHSP as part of the regularly recurring
update process to:
(i) Confirm the validity of the emphasis areas and effectiveness of
strategies based on analysis of current safety data; and
* * * * *
(b) The information resulting from paragraph (a)(2) of this section
shall be used:
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 924.15 by revising the introductory text to paragraphs
(a) and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 924.15 Reporting.
(a) For the period of the previous reporting year, each State shall
submit to the FHWA Division Administrator no later than August 31 of
each year, the following reports related to the HSIP in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 130(g) using an electronic template provided by
FHWA:
(1) A report describing the progress being made to implement the
HSIP and the effectiveness of completed highway safety improvement
projects. The report shall:
(i) Describe the progress in achieving safety outcomes and
performance targets. This section shall:
(A) Provide an overview of general highway safety trends. General
highway safety trends shall be presented by number and rate of
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by calendar year,
and to the maximum extent practicable, shall also be presented by
functional classification and roadway ownership. General highway safety
trends shall also be presented for the number of fatalities and serious
injuries for non-motorized users and older drivers and pedestrians over
the age of 65; and
(B) Discuss the progress made implementing the priorities and
actions identified in the State's HSIP implementation plan under 23
U.S.C. 148(i)(2), if applicable.
(ii) Assess the effectiveness of the improvements. This section
shall describe the effectiveness of individual highway safety
improvement projects, countermeasures, and program of highway safety
improvement projects previously implemented under the HSIP.
(iii) Report quantifiable progress in the quality attributes of
accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and
integration for the MIRE fundamental data elements.
(iv) Be compatible with the requirements of section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d).
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 924.17 by revising the introductory text and Tables 1,
2, and 3 to read as follows:
Sec. 924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements.
The MIRE fundamental data elements shall be collected on all public
roads, as listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this section, except as noted
in 23 U.S.C. 148(k). For the purpose of MIRE fundamental data elements
applicability, the term ``open to public travel'' shall be consistent
with the definition in Sec. 460.2(c) of this chapter.
Table 1--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local \1\ Paved Roads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interchange/
MIRE name \2\ Roadway segment Intersection ramp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) \3\ \4\.................. X X ...............
AADT Year \3\ \4\............................................ X X ...............
Access Control \3\........................................... X ............... ...............
Begin Point Segment Descriptor \3\........................... X ............... ...............
End Point Segment Descriptor \3\............................. X ............... ...............
Direction of Inventory....................................... X ............... ...............
Federal Aid/Route Type \3\................................... X ............... ...............
Functional Class \3\......................................... X ............... X
Interchange Type............................................. ............... ............... X
Intersection/Junction Geometry............................... ............... X ...............
Intersection/Junction Traffic Control........................ ............... X ...............
Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point................ ............... X ...............
Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point................ ............... X ...............
Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal... ............... ............... X
Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal...... ............... ............... X
Median Type.................................................. X ............... ...............
Number of Through Lanes \3\.................................. X ............... ...............
One/Two-Way Operations \3\................................... X ............... ...............
Ramp AADT \3\................................................ ............... ............... X
Ramp Length.................................................. ............... ............... X
Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal...................... ............... ............... X
Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal......................... ............... ............... X
Route Number \3\............................................. X ............... ...............
Route/street Name \3\........................................ X ............... ...............
Rural/Urban Designation \3\.................................. X ............... ...............
Segment Identifier........................................... X ............... ...............
Segment Length \3\........................................... X ............... ...............
Surface Type \3\............................................. X ............... ...............
Type of Governmental Ownership \3\........................... X ............... X
Unique Approach Identifier (for each approach)............... ............... X ...............
Unique Interchange Identifier................................ ............... ............... X
Unique Junction Identifier................................... ............... X ...............
[[Page 13013]]
Year of Ramp AADT \3\........................................ ............... ............... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on functional classification.
\2\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-17-048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49568.
\3\ Existing Highway Performance Monitoring System element.
\4\ For each intersecting road.
Table 2--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Local \1\ Paved Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway
MIRE name \2\ segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AADT \3\.................................................... X
Begin Point Segment Descriptor \3\.......................... X
End Point Segment Descriptor \3\............................ X
Functional Class \3\........................................ X
Number of Through Lanes \3\................................. X
Rural/Urban Designation \3\................................. X
Segment Identifier.......................................... X
Surface Type \3\............................................ X
Type of Governmental Ownership \3\.......................... X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on Functional Classification.
\2\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No.
FHWA-SA-17-048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49568.
\3\ Existing Highway Performance Monitoring System element.
Table 3--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Unpaved Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway
MIRE name \1\ segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Point Segment Descriptor \2\.......................... X
End Point Segment Descriptor \2\............................ X
Functional Class \2\........................................ X
Segment Identifier.......................................... X
Type of Governmental Ownership \2\.......................... X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No.
FHWA-SA-17-048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49568.
\2\ Existing Highway Performance Monitoring System element.
[FR Doc. 2024-02831 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
