[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17464-17482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06681]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 924

[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0019]
RIN 2125-AF56


Highway Safety Improvement Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to 
propose changes to Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 
regulations to address provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in 
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) as well as to incorporate clarifications 
to better explain existing regulatory language. Specifically, this rule 
proposes to amend DOT's regulations to address MAP-21 provisions that 
removed the requirement for States to prepare a Transparency Report, 
removed the High Risk Rural Roads set-aside, and removed the 10 percent 
flexibility provision for States to use safety funding in accordance 
with federal law. This rule also proposes to amend DOT's regulations to 
address a MAP-21 provision that requires DOT to establish a subset of 
roadway data elements that are useful to the inventory of roadway 
safety, and to ensure that States adopt and use the subset. Finally, 
this rule proposes to address MAP-21 provisions that add State 
Strategic Highway Safety Plan update requirements and require States to 
develop HSIP performance targets. The proposed changes are intended to 
clarify the regulation for the development, implementation, and 
evaluation of highway safety improvement programs that are administered 
in each State.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2014.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number that 
appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be 
available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. 
to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 
desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that 
appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to 
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our 
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 
65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Scurry, Office of Safety, 
karen.scurry@dot.gov; or William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
william.winne@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or access all comments received by the DOT online 
through: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and 
retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is 
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the 
instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be 
downloaded from the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.federalregister.gov.

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 
(Pub. L. 112-141) continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program 
(HSIP) under section 148, title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 
as a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant 
reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The 
MAP-21 amends the HSIP by requiring the DOT to establish several new 
requirements and remove several provisions that were introduced under 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). A revision to 23 CFR 924 is necessary to 
align with the MAP-21 provisions and clarify existing program 
requirements.
    A key component of this proposal is the requirement for States to 
collect and use a set of proposed roadway data elements for all public 
roadways, including local roads. Example proposed data elements include 
elements to classify and delineate roadway segments (e.g., beginning 
and end point descriptors), elements to identify roadway physical 
characteristics (e.g., median type and ramp length), and elements to 
identify traffic volume. The purpose of this proposal, in addition to 
satisfying a statutory requirement, is to improve States' ability to 
estimate expected number of crashes at roadway locations, with the 
ultimate goal to improve States' allocation of safety resources.

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in 
Question

    This NPRM proposes to remove all existing references to the High 
Risk Rural Roads Program, 10 percent flexibility provisions, and 
transparency reports since MAP-21 eliminated these provisions.
    The MAP-21 also requires the DOT to establish the update cycle for 
Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) [23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(A)], the 
content and schedule for the HSIP report [23 U.S.C. 148(h)(2)], and a 
subset of model roadway elements (a.k.a. Model Inventory of Roadway 
Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE)) [23 U.S.C. 
148(e)(2)(A)]. The NPRM proposes a 5-year SHSP update cycle, consistent 
with current practice in most States. The DOT proposes States continue 
to submit their HSIP reports on annual basis, by August 31 each year. 
In addition to existing reporting requirements and the proposed changes 
noted above, the DOT proposes that State DOTs document their safety 
performance targets in their annual HSIP report, and describe progress 
to achieve those safety performance targets in future HSIP reports. The 
DOT also proposes States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit 
their annual HSIP reports, consistent with the Office of the Inspector 
General's recommendations in the recent HSIP Audit.\1\ Currently, a

[[Page 17465]]

majority of States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their 
annual HSIP reports. We believe that the proposed roadway data elements 
are the fundamental set of data elements that an agency would need in 
order to conduct enhanced safety analyses to improve safety investment 
decisionmaking through the HSIP. We believe the proposed roadway 
elements also have the potential to support other safety and 
infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP. The FHWA is proposing 
to require that States collect and use the same fundamental roadway 
elements that are recommended in the State Safety Data Systems Guidance 
published December 27, 2012.\2\ We explain in more detail later in this 
proposed rule the reason(s) for proposing each individual roadway data 
element, but in general some of the elements are needed to address MAP-
21 reporting requirements and some are needed in order to conduct 
improved analyses for predicting crashes. Later in this proposed rule 
we seek comments on whether we have selected the appropriate subset of 
roadway data elements in order to implement the statutory requirement 
and maximize net benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Office of the Inspector General, FHWA Provides Sufficient 
Guidance and Assistance to Implement the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program but Could Do More to Assess Program Results, Report Number: 
MH-2013-055. March 26, 2013 is available at the following Internet 
Web site: http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/FHWA's%20Highway%20Safety%20Improvement%20Program%5E3-26-13.pdf.
    \2\ Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued 
December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafetydata.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRPM also proposes additions to clarify other MAP-21 provisions 
related to non-infrastructure projects and performance management 
requirements. The HSIP funds are now eligible for any type of highway 
safety improvement project (i.e. infrastructure or non-infrastructure). 
The DOT proposes that agencies should use all other eligible funding 
programs for non-infrastructure projects, prior to using HSIP funds for 
these purposes. The DOT also proposes language throughout the NPRM to 
be consistent with the performance management requirements under 23 
U.S.C. 150.

III. Costs and Benefits

    Of the three requirements mandated by MAP-21 (i.e. MIRE FDE, SHSP 
update cycle, and HSIP Report Content and Schedule) and addressed in 
this proposed rule, we believe that only the proposal regarding the 
MIRE FDE would result in additional costs. The SAFETEA-LU and the 
existing regulation require States to update their SHSP on a regular 
basis; the proposed rulemaking proposes that States update their SHSP 
every 5 years. The proposed rulemaking does not change the existing 
schedule for the HSIP report. The MAP-21 results in only minimal 
proposed changes to the HSIP report content related to reporting safety 
performance targets; however, additional costs as a result of this new 
content are negligible and the removal of the transparency report 
requirements reduces existing costs. Therefore, FHWA bases its cost-
benefit analysis on the MIRE FDE component only and uses the ``MIRE 
Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'' Report \3\ for this 
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'', 
FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is 
available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 displays the estimated total net present value cost of the 
proposed requirements for States to collect, maintain, and use the 
proposed MIRE FDE for all public roadways. Total costs are estimated to 
be $228.8 million undiscounted, $220.6 million discounted at 0.5 
percent (discount rate used in the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation 
Report), $185.8 million discounted at 3 percent, and $146.1 million 
discounted at 7 percent. Although not a specific requirement of this 
NPRM, the cost estimate also includes an estimate of the cost for 
States to extend their statewide linear referencing system (LRS) to all 
public roads, since an all-public-roads LRS is a prerequisite to 
realizing the full benefits from collecting and using the MIRE FDE. 
This cost is estimated to be $17.2 million. The cost estimates reflect 
the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not 
being collected through the Highway Performance Monitoring System 
(HPMS) or not already being collected through other efforts. In order 
for the rule to have net safety benefits, States would need to analyze 
the collected data, use it to identify locations with road safety 
improvement potential, shift project funding to those locations, and 
those projects would need to have more safety benefits than the 
projects invested in using current methods which do not incorporate the 
proposed MIRE FDE. We believe that this analysis and shifting of 
funding will not cost more than States' current methodology for 
choosing projects.

                              Table 1--Total Estimated National Costs for MIRE FDE
                                           [2013-2029 Analysis period]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total national costs
                 Cost components                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Undiscounted        0.5%            3.00%           7.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Section 924.17:
    Linear Referencing System (LRS).............     $17,239,277     $17,180,594     $16,895,724     $16,467,622
    Initial Data Collection.....................      53,172,638      52,319,704      48,367,784      42,980,809
        Roadway Segments........................      37,941,135      37,332,527      34,512,650      30,668,794
        Intersections...........................       8,284,572       8,151,681       7,535,951       6,696,633
        Interchange/Ramp locations..............         832,734         819,376         757,485         673,120
        Volume Collection.......................       6,114,197       6,016,120       5,561,698       4,942,262
    Maintenance of data system..................     154,945,661     147,701,120     117,370,098      83,834,343
    Management & administration.................       3,449,812       3,394,474       3,138,075       2,788,571
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost..............................     228,807,387     220,595,892     185,771,683     146,071,346
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17466]]

    The cost of data collection for an average State is estimated at 
$1,362,800 to complete the LRS and initial MIRE FDE collection efforts, 
$66,600 for management and administration costs,\4\ and $2,896,100 for 
maintenance costs \5\ over the analysis period of 2013-2029 (in 2013 
U.S. dollars, at a 0.5% discount rate).\6\ These estimates are net 
present value average costs on a per State basis. As such, across the 
50 States and the District of Columbia, it is possible that the 
aggregate cost for LRS and initial data collection would be 
approximately $69.5 million, and the annual maintenance cost would 
approach $11.5 million.\7\ This equates to approximately $225,000 on 
average for a State to maintain the data annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOT defines management and administration costs as the costs 
to administer contracts for data collection. The analysis estimates 
management and administration costs at 5 percent of the estimated 
initial MIRE FDE collection costs. The analysis assumes management 
and administration costs would not exceed $250,000 per State.
    \5\ DOT defines maintenance costs as the costs to update the 
data as conditions change. The analysis assumes that 2 percent of 
roadway mileage would need to be updated annually.
    \6\ Ibid.
    \7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIRE FDE are beneficial because collecting this roadway and 
traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis 
process would improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and 
apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. The FHWA did 
not estimate the benefits of this rule. Instead, FHWA has conducted a 
break-even analysis. Table 2 shows the reduction in fatalities and 
injuries due to improvements in safety investment decisionmaking with 
the use of the MIRE FDE that would be needed for the costs of the data 
collection to equal the benefits, and for the costs of the data 
collection to equal half of the benefits. Using the 2012 comprehensive 
cost of a fatality of $9,100,000 and $107,438 for an average injury, 
results in an estimated reduction of 0.38 fatalities and 24.77 injuries 
per average State over the 2013-2029 analysis period (at a 0.5% 
discount rate) would be needed to result in a benefit-cost ratio 
greater than 1:1.\8\ To achieve a benefit/cost ratio of 2:1, fatalities 
would need to be reduced by 0.76 and injuries by 49.54 per average 
State over the same analysis period.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ibid.
    \9\ Ibid.

       Table 2--Reduction in Fatalities and Injuries Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1 and 2:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of lives saved/injuries avoided nationally
                    Benefits                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Undiscounted        0.5%            3.00%           7.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit/Cost Ratio of 1:1:
     of lives saved (fatalities).......              19              19              21              23
     of severe injuries avoided........            1246            1263            1353            1517
Benefit/Cost Ratio of 2:1:
     of lives saved (fatalities).......              38              39              42              47
     of severe injuries avoided........            2493            2527            2706            3034
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a preliminary study that found relationships between 
State's use of roadway inventory data (in combination with their crash 
data in analyses supporting their safety investment decision making) 
and the magnitude of States' fatal-crash reduction,\10\ and other 
anecdotal information, we believe that this level of benefit may be 
achievable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Wu, K.-F., Himes, S.C., and Pietrucha, M.T., ``Evaluation 
of Effectiveness of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement 
Program,'' Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2318, pp. 23-34, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law MAP-21 (Pub. L. 
112-141, 126 Stat. 405). Among other things, the law authorizes funds 
for Federal-aid highways. In Section 1112 of this Act, Congress amended 
the HSIP of section 148 of title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). 
The HSIP is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a 
significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public 
roads. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving 
highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. The 
FHWA proposes to incorporate the MAP-21 amendments, as well as general 
updates, into 23 CFR Part 924 Highway Safety Improvement Program to 
provide consistency with 23 U.S.C. 148 and to provide State and local 
safety partners with clarity on the purpose, definitions, policy, 
program structure, planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting 
of the HSIP. Specifically, MAP-21 removed the requirement for States to 
prepare a Transparency Report, removed the High Risk Rural Roads set-
aside, and removed the 10 percent flexibility provision for States to 
use safety funding in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(e). The MAP-21 also 
adds data system and improvement requirements, State SHSP update 
requirements, and requirements for States to develop HSIP performance 
targets. The DOT will address specific requirements related to HSIP 
performance target requirements through a separate, but concurrent, 
rulemaking effort.

Stakeholder Outreach

    The MAP-21 requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 
subset of the model inventory of roadway elements, or the MIRE FDE, 
that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety. Initial 
consideration of requiring collection of FDEs dates back to a report by 
the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the 
progress made toward accomplishing the HSIP goals set forth in SAFETEA-
LU. In November 2008, the GAO published ``Highway Safety Improvement 
Program: Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better 
Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities'' to document their 
findings. The GAO report recommended that the Secretary of 
Transportation direct FHWA Administrator to take the following three 
actions:
     Define which roadway inventory data elements--contained in 
its proposal for a Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements, as 
appropriate--a State needs to meet Federal requirements for HSIP;
     Set a deadline for States to finalize development of the 
required roadway inventory data; and
     Require States to submit schedules to FHWA for achieving 
compliance with this requirement.
    Following extensive work on accommodating GAO's recommendations, 
FHWA published, ``Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and 
Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway

[[Page 17467]]

Safety Improvement Program'' \11\ on August 1, 2011. As part of 
addressing GAO's recommendations, FHWA engaged in efforts to obtain 
public input. The FHWA hosted a peer exchange at the 2009 Asset 
Management Conference, two Webinars in December 2009, and one listening 
session at the January 2010 Transportation Research Board meeting to 
obtain input on possible approaches to address the GAO's 
recommendations. These sessions were designed to reach local and State 
transportation officials, as well as professional transportation safety 
organizations. These sessions were attended by over 150 representatives 
of Federal, State, and local jurisdictions from across the country, as 
well as professional organizations. The purpose of these sessions was 
to gather feedback from stakeholders regarding mandatory roadway 
inventory elements and scheduling inventory data improvements, and to 
discuss other approaches from stakeholders regarding the collection and 
use of data for HSIP. During the Webinars and the listening session, 
FHWA listened carefully to the comments and concerns expressed by the 
stakeholders and used that information when developing the August 1, 
2011, Guidance Memorandum. The August 1, 2011, guidance memorandum 
formed the basis for the State Safety Data System guidance published on 
December 27, 2012.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data 
Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program, issued 
August 1, 2011 can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/memohsip072911/.
    \12\ Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued 
December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafetydata.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking

    The proposed regulatory text follows the same format and section 
titles currently in 23 CFR 924, but FHWA proposes substantive changes 
to each section. Specifically, FHWA proposes to replace the existing 23 
CFR Part 924 with new language in the following sections.

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.1 Purpose

    The FHWA proposes to clarify that the purpose of this regulation is 
to prescribe requirements for the HSIP, rather than to set forth policy 
on the development, implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive 
HSIP in each State.

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.3 Definitions

    The FHWA proposes to remove the following eight definitions, 
because they would no longer be used in the regulation: ``high risk 
rural road,'' ``highway-rail grade crossing protective devices,'' 
``integrated interoperable emergency communication equipment,'' 
``interoperable emergency communications system,'' ``operational 
improvements,'' ``safety projects under any other section,'' ``State,'' 
and ``transparency report.''
    The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for ``high risk rural 
road'' because MAP-21 removed the High Risk Rural Road and associated 
reporting requirements.
    The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for ``highway-rail grade 
crossing protective devices'' because this term was used in the 
definition of highway safety improvement projects as an example project 
and FHWA proposes removing the list of example projects. ``Highway-rail 
grade crossing protective devices'' was also used in sec. 924.11 
(Implementation) to reference to the 23 U.S.C. 130(f) requirement for 
States to spend at least 50 percent of their Railway-Highway Crossing 
Funds on protective devices, which FHWA is proposing to remove.
    The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for ``integrated 
interoperable emergency communication equipment'' because this term was 
only used in the definition of highway safety improvement project as an 
example project and defined separately for clarification. The FHWA 
proposes removing the example list of highway safety improvement 
projects. The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for 
``interoperable emergency operations system'' because this term was 
only used in the definition of integrated interoperable emergency 
communication equipment, which FHWA is also proposing to remove.
    The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for ``operational 
improvements'' because it was only used in the context of the High Risk 
Rural Roads Program, which MAP-21 removed. ``Operational improvements'' 
was also used in the definition of a highway safety improvement project 
as an example project, and FHWA proposes to remove the example list of 
highway safety improvement projects, as well.
    The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for ``safety projects 
under any other section'' because this term was used in reference to 
the 10 percent flexibility provision which no longer exists under MAP-
21.
    The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for ``State'' because 
HSIP requirements apply to Puerto Rico under MAP-21; therefore, the 
definition of State in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) applies to HSIP, as well.
    The FHWA proposes to remove the definition for ``transparency 
report'' because MAP-21 no longer requires States to submit a 
transparency report as part of the HSIP reporting requirements.
    The FHWA proposes to revise eight definitions to provide clarity or 
consistency for each as related to the regulation.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition for the term ``highway'' 
to match the definition of 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and clarify the provision 
that HSIP funds can be used for highway safety improvement projects on 
any facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists pursuant to 23 
U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(A). This clarification relates to HSIP funding and 
projects, and not to collection of MIRE FDEs. The proposed rule would 
not require the collection of MIRE FDE on pedestrian and bicycle 
facilities.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``highway safety 
improvement program'' by adding the acronym ``HSIP'' to indicate that, 
when the acronym HSIP is used in the regulation, it is referring to the 
program carried out under 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148, not individual 
projects. For further clarification, FHWA proposes to include a listing 
of the HSIP components--SHSP, Railway-Highway Crossings program, and 
program of highway safety improvement projects--to the definition.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``highway safety 
improvement project'' to specify that it includes strategies, 
activities, and projects and that such projects can include both 
infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects under 23 U.S.C. 
148(a)(4)(A) and (c)(2)(C)(i). The FHWA also proposes to remove the 
listing of project types, and instead refer to 23 U.S.C. 148(a) for the 
example list of projects, because FHWA does not want States to consider 
a listing of projects in the regulation to be an exhaustive, all-
inclusive list.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``public grade 
crossing'' in order to clarify that associated sidewalks and pathways 
and shared use paths are also elements of a public grade crossing 
pursuant to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-
432, Section 2(a)(1).
    The FHWA proposes to add to the definition of ``public road'' that 
non-

[[Page 17468]]

State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands are considered 
public roads pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(12)(D), (b)(2), (c)(2)(A)(i), 
(c)(2)(D)(ii) and (d)(1)(B)(viii).
    The FHWA proposes to remove ``vehicle data'' from the listing of 
safety data components in the definition of ``safety data'' to be 
consistent with MAP-21. 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)(A).
    The FHWA proposes to expand the definition of ``safety 
stakeholder'' to include a list of stakeholders. Although the list is 
not exhaustive, FHWA proposes including this list to ensure that States 
are aware of the range of stakeholders.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``serious injury'' to 
reference the latest edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash 
Criteria definition. The FHWA plans for the effective implementation 
date of this definition to align with the effective date of the same 
definition used in the safety performance management NPRM currently 
underway. Interested persons should refer to the safety performance 
management rulemaking for additional information (see Docket No. FHWA-
2013-0020 or RIN 2125-AF49).
    Finally, FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``strategic 
highway safety plan'' to indicate that the SHSP is a multidisciplinary 
plan, rather than a data-driven one to be consistent with MAP-21. The 
FHWA proposes adding multidisciplinary to the definition since that is 
an important component of the SHSP. The FHWA would also include the 
acronym ``SHSP'' in the definition.
    The FHWA proposes to add four definitions of terms used in the 
revised regulation. The FHWA proposes to add a definition for ``Model 
Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data Elements (FDE)'' 
because this listing of roadway and traffic data elements, needed to 
support advanced safety analyses, would be incorporated in this 
proposed regulation. The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for 
``reporting year,'' ``spot safety improvement,'' and ``systemic safety 
improvement'' because these terms would be used in the proposed revised 
regulation. The FHWA proposes to define ``reporting year'' as a 1-year 
period defined by the State so that States have the flexibility to 
define the reporting year that best fits their budget and planning 
cycles. The FHWA proposes to define ``spot safety improvement'' and 
``systemic safety improvement'' to clarify the difference between these 
two types of improvements. A ``spot safety improvement'' would be an 
improvement or set of improvements that is implemented at a specific 
location on the basis of location-specific crash experience or other 
data-driven means; whereas, a ``systemic safety improvement'' would be 
an improvement or set of improvements that is widely implemented based 
on high-risk roadway features correlated with particular severe crash 
types.
    The FHWA proposes to maintain the current definitions without 
change for ``hazard index formula'' and ``road safety audit.''

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.5 Policy

    In paragraph (a), FHWA proposes minor editorial modifications to 
explicitly state that the HSIP's objective is to significantly reduce 
fatalities and serious injuries, rather than ``the occurrence of and 
potential for fatalities and serious injuries'' as written in the 
existing regulation.
    The FHWA proposes to delete from paragraph (b) the provisions 
related to 10 percent flex funds, due to the removal of the flex fund 
provisions in MAP-21. The FHWA proposes to add language that funding 
shall be used for highway safety improvement projects that have the 
greatest potential net benefits and that achieve the State's fatality 
and serious injury performance targets in order to correlate this 
regulation with the provisions of section 1203 of MAP-21 regarding 
safety performance targets under 23 U.S.C. 150. The FHWA also proposes 
to clarify that prior to approving the use of HSIP funds for non-
infrastructure related safety projects, FHWA will assess the extent to 
which other Federal funds provided to the States for non-infrastructure 
safety programs (including but not limited to those administered by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration) are programmed. The FHWA expects 
States to fully program these non-infrastructure funds prior to seeking 
HSIP funds for such uses. The FHWA's intent is for States to use all 
available resources to support their highway safety needs and make 
progress toward a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 
injuries on all public roads. (In the case of non-infrastructure 
projects involving NHTSA grant funds, State DOTs should consult State 
Highway Safety Offices about the project eligibility requirements under 
23 U.S.C. 402.)
    The FHWA proposes to remove the first sentence of paragraph (c) 
regarding the use of other Federal-aid funds, since this information is 
repeated in section 924.11 (Implementation) and is better suited for 
that section. The FHWA also proposes minor edits to the paragraph to 
provide more accurate references to the National Highway Performance 
Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Federal-aid 
programs, and remove references to the Interstate Maintenance, National 
Highway System, and Equity Bonus funding sources, since these funding 
programs have been consolidated into other program areas. As stated in 
the existing regulation, safety improvements that are provided as part 
of a broader Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source 
as the broader project. This provision remains unchanged by the 
proposed revisions.

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.7 Program Structure

    In paragraph (a), FHWA proposes to clarify the structure of the 
HSIP by specifying that the HSIP is to include a SHSP, a Railway-
Highway Crossings Program, and a program of highway safety improvement 
projects (infrastructure and non-infrastructure). Currently, the 
existing regulation uses the term HSIP in reference to the program 
under 23 U.S.C. 148 as well as the State's HSIP as defined in 23 U.S.C. 
148(a)(11). The existing program structure does not change; however, 
this has been a point of confusion so FHWA believes that listing the 
three main components will help States better understand the program 
structure.
    The FHWA proposes to clarify paragraph (b) by specifying that the 
HSIP shall include a separate process for planning, implementation, and 
evaluation of the HSIP components described in section 924.7(a) on all 
public roads. The proposed revisions would clarify that these processes 
shall cover all public roads. The FHWA also proposes minor revisions to 
require that each process be developed in cooperation with the FHWA 
Division Administrator and in consultation with officials of the 
various units of local and tribal governments; it further adds that 
other safety stakeholders should also be consulted, as appropriate. The 
proposed changes clarify that each State would work with FHWA to 
develop appropriate processes and would consult with local governments 
and other stakeholders in the development of those processes. These 
changes reflect common practices in developing State Transportation 
Improvement Plans (STIP) under 23 CFR 450.216(b), (c), (d) and (f).'' 
In addition, FHWA proposes to clarify that the processes developed are 
in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Finally, FHWA 
proposes to remove the existing last sentence of

[[Page 17469]]

the regulation that references what the processes may include, since 
that language is more appropriate for guidance documents rather than 
regulation.

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.9 Planning

    The FHWA proposes to reorganize and revise paragraph (a) regarding 
the HSIP planning process so that it reflects the sequence of actions 
that States should take in the HSIP planning process. As a result of 
this reorganization, the HSIP planning process would now include six 
distinct elements, including a separate element for updates to the SHSP 
which currently exists under the safety data analysis processes. The 
FHWA also proposes removing existing item (a)(3)(iii) regarding the 
High Risk Rural Roads program to reflect the change in legislation. 
Proposed key revisions to each element of section 924.9(a) are 
described in the following paragraphs:
    (a)(1) The proposed revision would group data as ``safety data,'' 
rather than specifying individual data components. The proposed 
language also would specify that roadway data shall include MIRE FDEs 
under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(5) and (f)(1) and (2), and railway-highway grade 
crossing data including all fields from the DOT National Highway-Rail 
Crossing Inventory, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 130. The FHWA includes 
the use of MIRE FDEs consistent with guidance \13\ issued by FHWA on 
December 27, 2012. The guidance memorandum provides background and 
guidance information on roadway and traffic data elements that can be 
used to improve safety investment decisionmaking through the HSIP. The 
Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0,\14\ report 
defines each roadway element and describes its attributes. The 
fundamental data elements are a basic set of elements on which an 
agency would need to conduct enhanced safety analyses regardless of the 
specific analysis tools used or methods applied. The elements are based 
on findings in the FHWA report ``Background Report: Guidance for 
Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highways Safety Improvement Program 
(Background Report).'' \15\ The fundamental data elements have the 
potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs in 
addition to the HSIP. Further discussion of the MIRE FDEs is contained 
below in section 924.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Guidance Memorandum on State Safety Data Systems, issued 
December 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafetydata.cfm.
    \14\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0, 
Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/collateral/mire_report.pdf.
    \15\ ``Background Report: Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to 
Support the Highways Safety Improvement Program (Background 
Report),'' FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-11-39, published June 2011 is 
available at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/dcag.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)(2) The proposed revision would clarify that safety data 
includes all public roads.
    (a)(3 [formerly 3(ii)]) The FHWA proposes to specify the SHSP 
update cycle, as required by MAP-21, and a process for updating the 
SHSP. The FHWA is proposing a 5-year update cycle, which is the current 
practice in most States. For example, 39 States updated their SHSP or 
had an SHSP update underway within a 5-year timeframe. A number of 
those States are on the third version of their SHSP. Of those States 
that have not delivered an SHSP update, they have an update planned or 
an update well underway. Many of the elements are currently contained 
in former item (a)(3)(ii); however, FHWA proposes reordering and 
combining some of the items to reflect the sequence of actions States 
should take in HSIP planning. The proposed revisions highlight the 
importance of the SHSP in the HSIP planning process and that it is a 
separate element. Proposed sub-item (v) would require the SHSP 
performance-based goals be consistent with 23 U.S.C. 150 performance 
measures and be coordinated with other State highway safety programs. 
This would provide a necessary link to MAP-21 performance goals, tying 
the safety goals together so that the SHSP goals are consistent with 
those in 23 U.S.C. 150 and are coordinated with the NHTSA safety 
goals.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ According to MAP-21, the NHTSA safety performance goals are 
to be limited to those described in ``Traffic Safety Performance 
Measures for States and Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025). This 
report is available at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811025.pdf. The document found at this link can 
also be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)(4(i) [formerly 3(i)]) The FHWA proposes to rephrase this item 
to specify that the program of highway safety improvement projects 
(rather than the HSIP) is to be developed in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
148(c)(2). The FHWA also proposes to remove the listing of the 23 
U.S.C. 148(c)(2) elements from the regulation because it is repetitive.
    (a)(4(ii) [formerly 3(iv)]) The FHWA proposes removing existing 
item (C) regarding consideration of dangers to larger numbers of people 
at public grade crossings, since this element is already included in 
the hazard index formula and is more appropriate for guidance.
    (a)(5 [formerly 4]) The FHWA proposes to remove reference to 
``hazardous locations, sections and elements'' to clarify that an 
engineering study is applicable to the development of all highway 
safety improvement projects, including those that address the potential 
for crashes.
    (a)(6 [formerly 5]) The FHWA proposes removing the following 
existing items because these elements are integral components of the 
SHSP, not to individual projects: (iv) Regarding correction and 
prevention of hazardous conditions, (v) regarding other safety data-
driven criteria as appropriate in each State, and (vi) regarding 
integration with the various transportation processes and programs, 
from the process for establishing and implementing highway safety 
improvement projects. The FHWA believes that removing these items would 
help ensure that the funds are being appropriately spent and are 
meeting the objectives of the HSIP.
    The FHWA proposes to change the references for 23 U.S.C. 130 and 
148 to 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) for consistency with other sections in this 
regulation; remove the reference to 23 U.S.C. 133, since this is not 
the primary intent of this program; and replace 23 U.S.C. 104(f) with 
104(d) to reflect the change in legislation numbering. The FHWA also 
proposes to add language to clarify that use of these funding 
categories is subject to the individual program's eligibility criteria 
and the allocation of costs based on the benefit to each funding 
category.
    In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes to add non-infrastructure safety 
projects, to be funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), to the list of 
highway safety improvement projects that would be carried out as part 
of the STIP processes consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 
and 135 and 23 CFR part 450. The FHWA also proposes to require States 
to be able to distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure 
projects in the STIP in order to assist in tracking of the funds 
programmed on infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects for State 
and FHWA reporting purposes.

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.11 Implementation

    The FHWA proposes removing former paragraph (b) describing the 10 
percent flex funds and former paragraph (c) describing funding set 
asides for improvements on high risk rural roads

[[Page 17470]]

to reflect changes associated with MAP-21.
    The FHWA proposes adding new paragraph (b) to require States to 
incorporate an implementation plan by July 1, 2015, for collecting MIRE 
FDEs in their State's Traffic Records Strategic Plan. The FHWA proposes 
the implementation date to be the July 1 following the publication of 
the final rule, unless the final rule is published less than 6 months 
before July 1 in which case, the implementation date would be July 1 of 
the following calendar year. The FHWA proposes July 1 because that date 
reflects the annual due date for States' Highway Safety Plans. The 
Highway Safety Plans would include all grant applications, including 
those for 23 U.S.C. 405 funds, which require States to develop a 
multiyear traffic records strategic plan if they are applying for 23 
U.S.C. 405(c) grants. The FHWA also proposes specifying that States 
shall complete collection of the MIRE FDEs on all public roads by the 
end of the fiscal year 5 years after the anticipated effective date of 
a final rule for this NPRM. For example, if the final rule is effective 
in August of 2016, then the collection would need to be completed by 
September 30, 2021. The FHWA believes that 5 years is sufficient for 
States to collect the MIRE FDEs. The FHWA plans to include a specific 
time period in the regulation based upon the effective date of a final 
rule for this NPRM.
    The FHWA proposes to relocate and clarify existing requirements 
related to SHSP implementation in new paragraph (c). As part of the 
existing HSIP planning process, States are currently required to 
determine priorities for SHSP implementation (sec. 924.9(a)(3)(ii)(I)) 
and propose a process for implementation of the plan (sec. 
924.9(a)(3)(ii)(L)). The FHWA proposes to clarify that the SHSP shall 
include actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies 
would be implemented. The FHWA proposes this clarification to ensure 
that States develop actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area 
strategies would be implemented contributing to significant reductions 
in fatalities and serious injuries. The inclusion of action steps or 
plans in a State SHSP is common practice. A number of State SHSPs \17\ 
currently include actions to implement the emphasis areas for their 
respective State. For example, a number of State SHSPs, including 
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nevada, and Rhode Island, contain actions to 
implement emphasis areas for their respective States. Each action step 
includes identification of the organization having primary 
responsibility in overseeing implementation of the associated action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Individual State SHSPs are linked from the FHWA Office of 
Safety Web site at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/state_links.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In paragraph (d), FHWA proposes removing language regarding 
specific use of 23 U.S.C. 130(f) funds for railway-highway grade 
crossings, because reference to 23 U.S.C. 130 as a whole is more 
appropriate than specifying just section (f). The FHWA would retain 
language about the Special Rule under 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2) authorizing 
use of funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 130 for HSIP purposes if a 
State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the FHWA Division 
Administrator that the State has met its needs for installation of 
protective devices at railway-highway grade crossings, in order to 
ensure that all States are aware of this provision.
    The FHWA proposes to revise paragraph (g) [formerly (h)] regarding 
the Federal share of the cost of a highway safety improvement project 
carried out with funds apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(3) 
to reflect 23 U.S.C. 148(j). The FHWA proposes to remove existing 
paragraphs (g) and (i) because the regulations are covered elsewhere 
and therefore do not need to be in this regulation. In particular, 
existing paragraph (g) is addressed in 23 CFR 450.216, which documents 
the requirements for the development and content of the STIP, including 
accounting for safety projects. In addition, existing paragraph (i) 
regarding implementation of safety projects in accordance with 23 CFR 
630, Subpart A applies to all Federal-aid projects, not just HSIP, and 
is therefore not necessary in the HSIP regulation.
    The FHWA proposes to retain existing paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) 
with minimal, editorial changes.

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.13 Evaluation

    The FHWA proposes the following changes to paragraph (a) regarding 
the evaluation of the HSIP and SHSP:
    The FHWA proposes to revise item (1) to clarify that the process is 
to analyze and assess the results achieved by highway safety 
improvement projects generated from the SHSP and RHCP, and not the HSIP 
as stated in the existing regulation. This proposed change is 
consistent with the clarifications to the Program Structure, as 
described in the Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.7 
Program Structure above. States currently evaluate highway safety 
improvement projects to support evaluation of the HSIP; therefore, FHWA 
does not believe this change will result in any additional cost to the 
States because it will not require them to change their current 
evaluation practices or the way they report evaluations to FHWA. The 
FHWA invites comments on the impact of this proposed clarification to 
the existing regulations. The FHWA also proposes to revise the outcome 
of this process to align with the performance targets established under 
23 U.S.C. 150. This reflects the new requirement in section 1203 of 
MAP-21 for the establishment of performance targets; this requirement 
is the subject of a concurrent NPRM.
    The FHWA proposes to revise item (2) to clarify that the evaluation 
of the SHSP is part of the regularly recurring update process that is 
already required under the current regulations. As part of this change, 
FHWA proposes to remove existing sub-item (i) because ensuring the 
accuracy and currency of the safety data is already part of regular 
monitoring and tracking efforts. The FHWA proposes to revise new sub-
item (i) [formerly (ii)] to reflect that evaluation of the SHSP would 
include confirming the validity of the emphasis areas and strategies 
based on analysis of current safety data. Finally, in new sub-item (ii) 
[formerly (iii)] FHWA proposes to clarify that the SHSP evaluation must 
identify issues related to the SHSP's implementation and progress that 
should be considered during each subsequent SHSP update. Subsequent 
SHSP updates would need to take into consideration the issues 
experienced in implementing the previous plan and identify methods to 
overcome those issues. In addition, the SHSP evaluation and subsequent 
updates would ensure that HSIP resources are being aligned in a manner 
to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.
    The FHWA proposes a minor revision to paragraph (b), item (1) to 
specify that safety data used in the planning process would be updated 
based on the results of the evaluation under paragraph 1 of section 
924.13(a)(1). The FHWA proposes this change to reflect that current 
safety data be used in the planning process.
    Finally, FHWA proposes minor revisions to paragraph (c) to remove 
references to the STP and NHS (now NHPP) since evaluation is not the 
primary intent of these programs; replace the reference to 23 U.S.C. 
104(f) with 104(d) to reflect the change in legislation numbering; and 
update references to the U.S.C. The FHWA also proposes to add language 
to clarify that use of these funding categories is subject to the 
individual program's eligibility

[[Page 17471]]

criteria and the allocation of costs based on the benefit to each 
funding category.

Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking to Section 924.15 Reporting

    The FHWA proposes to remove the requirements for reporting on the 
High Risk Rural Roads program and the transparency report because MAP-
21 removes these reporting requirements.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the HSIP report requirements to specify 
what should be contained in those reports. In paragraph (a), FHWA 
proposes to require that the report be submitted via the HSIP online 
reporting tool. Additional information about the online reporting tool 
is available on the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/onrpttool/. Submitting reports in 
this manner would lessen the burden on States and would assist FHWA in 
review and evaluation of the reports.
    The FHWA proposes to replace sub-items (i) and (ii) of paragraph 
(1) in their entirety. In sub-item (i), FHWA proposes to indicate that 
the report needs to describe the structure of the HSIP, including how 
HSIP funds are administered in the State, and a summary of the 
methodology used to develop the programs and projects being implemented 
under the HSIP on all public roads. In sub-item (ii), FHWA proposes 
that the report describe the process in implementing the highway safety 
improvement projects and compare the funds programmed in the STIP for 
highway safety improvement projects with those obligated during the 
reporting year. The FHWA also proposes that the report include a list 
of highway safety improvement projects (and how each relates to the 
State SHSP) that were obligated during the reporting year, including 
non-infrastructure projects.
    The FHWA proposes a new sub-item (iii) that would indicate that the 
report shall describe the progress in achieving safety performance 
targets (as required by MAP-21 section 1203), including the established 
safety targets (number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries), 
trends, and applicability of special rules defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(g). 
The safety performance targets in this new sub-item (iii) would be 
presented in the report for all public roads by calendar year 
consistent with 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
    In new sub-item (iv), FHWA proposes that the report would assess 
improvements accomplished by describing the effectiveness of highway 
safety improvement projects implemented under the HSIP. Finally, FHWA 
proposes new sub-item (v) to require that the HSIP report be compatible 
with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794(d) (Section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act) whereas previously only the transparency report was 
required to be compatible.
    The FHWA does not propose any changes to the report describing 
progress to implement railway-highway grade crossing improvements.

Discussion of Proposed Addition of Section 924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data 
Elements

    The FHWA proposes to add section 924.17 containing the MIRE FDEs 
for the collection of roadway data. The FHWA proposes to include this 
section to comply with section 1112 of MAP-21 that amends 23 U.S.C. 148 
to require model inventory of roadway elements as part of data 
improvement. As mandated under 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2), the Secretary of 
Transportation shall (A) establish a subset of the model inventory of 
roadway elements that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; 
and (B) ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data 
collection. The proposed MIRE FDEs have been published in several FHWA 
documents as discussed previously in the Discussion of Proposed 
Rulemaking to Section 924.9 Planning. This proposed section would 
consist of two tables of MIRE FDEs listing the MIRE name and number for 
roadway segments, intersections, and interchanges or ramps as 
appropriate. Table 1 contains the proposed MIRE FDEs for Roads with 
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) greater than or equal to 400 
vehicles per day. The FHWA recognizes that fewer data elements are 
required to characterize two-lane roads, which carry lower traffic 
volumes than other types of roadway. Therefore, FHWA proposes a reduced 
set of MIRE FDE for roadways with less than 400 AADT. Table 2 of 
Section 924.17 contains the proposed MIRE FDEs for Roads with AADT less 
than 400 vehicles per day. The Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--
MIRE, Version 1.0 ,\18\ report defines each roadway element and 
describes its attributes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0, 
Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/collateral/mire_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes the 400 AADT breakpoint because it is used by 
FHWA and the American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) to characterize low volume roads. In addition to the 
legislative requirement that the HSIP address all public roads, FHWA 
believes it is in the public's best interest to collect the MIRE FDE on 
low volume roads because a substantial number of fatalities occur on 
these roads. Based on an estimate of the number of fatalities using the 
FARS breakdown of crashes by roadway functional class and estimates 
from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri of the mileage of roadways by AADT 
range for various functional classes, nearly 15 percent of total 
fatalities occur on roads with AADT <100, as illustrated in Table 3 
below.

       Table 3--Estimated Percent of Fatalities on <400 AADT Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Estimated
                                                              percentage
                  AADT (vehicles per day)                      of total
                                                              fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<400.......................................................         17.7
300-399....................................................          0.6
200-299....................................................          0.8
100-199....................................................          1.5
<100.......................................................         14.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA acknowledges that its estimates of fatalities on low volume 
are not based on a comprehensive data source. Therefore, FHWA seeks 
comments on other data sources and methodologies for analyzing the 
distribution of traffic accidents involving fatalities and serious 
injuries on low volume roads. While FHWA is mindful that it must 
satisfy the statutory requirement to collect information on all public 
roads, FHWA welcomes comments on whether there are some roads in which 
collecting certain MIRE FDE is not substantially beneficial to 
improving roadway safety, and if there are such roads, how the final 
rule might clearly distinguish between roads that require certain MIRE 
FDE and roads that may require only a smaller subset of MIRE FDE.
    While FHWA is not proposing requirements for how States must 
collect and process the proposed MIRE FDE, FHWA envisions that States 
would do so using a variety of means, tools and technology, including, 
but not limited to: Data mining existing resources (e.g., existing 
State-maintained roadway inventories, as-built plans, and construction 
records), ground-based imaging (e.g., driving along roads and using 
mobile mapping and LiDAR), and aerial imaging (both with and without 
LiDAR). In addition, FHWA understands that State DOTs may need to work 
with local transportation authorities to collect the MIRE FDE. A 
description of various methodologies for collecting MIRE FDE is 
provided in the

[[Page 17472]]

MIRE Data Collection Guidebook.\19\ For each methodology, the guidebook 
includes a discussion of available and emerging technologies, data 
collection efficiencies and potential concerns. The guide also presents 
suggested data collection methodologies for specific MIRE data 
elements, and specific guidance on how the elements can be collected 
and considerations for collection. The FHWA seeks comments and cost 
data on the methods States plan to use to fulfill the proposed data 
collection requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FHWA, MIRE Data Collection Guidebook, June 2013, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/datacollectionguidebook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MAP-21 requires that the subset of model inventory of roadway 
elements be useful for the inventory of roadway safety. The proposed 
MIRE FDE were developed based on stakeholder input and by identifying 
the data elements that are required to use safety analysis methods 
recommended in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual. The FHWA believes that 
the collection and use of the proposed MIRE FDE, when integrated with 
crash data, will enable jurisdictions to better estimate expected crash 
frequencies compared to existing data and methods used by States. In 
addition to addressing a statutory requirement, the purpose of the 
proposed MIRE FDE collection is to improve the data and methods States 
currently use to predict crashes and allocate safety resources. The 
FHWA believes that as States use advanced analysis methods (i.e., 
incorporating the proposed MIRE FDE and using methods such as those 
presented in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual) they will implement more 
effective safety improvement projects than they currently do. As 
described in Chapter 3, Fundamentals, of the AASHTO Highway Safety 
Manual, research and experience has shown that methods that attempt to 
predict a location's future crashes based solely on the location's past 
crashes are not as accurate as methods that attempt to predict a 
location's future crashes using the proposed MIRE FDE in combination 
with crash frequency data using analytical methods such as those 
recommended in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual. The FHWA believes that 
current methods, which heavily emphasize past number and rate of 
crashes prompt States to consider safety projects in locations that may 
be less than optimal, because a location's past number of crashes is 
not a good predictor of its future number of crashes. For example, the 
addition of a school or a residential development may increase a 
location's traffic volume which in turn may increase the number of 
crashes at the site. Using past crash data alone would not account for 
such changes. The MIRE FDE improves a State's ability to predict future 
crashes using statistical methods that combine the recent crash history 
at a location with crash data from many other similar locations (in the 
form of a regression model of crash frequency versus traffic volume 
unique to the particular roadway type). The DOT requests comments on 
the extent to which use of the proposed MIRE FDE, in combination with 
crash frequency data, will substantially improve States' ability to 
predict future crashes and more effectively allocate safety resources 
relative to existing data and methods used by States which do not 
incorporate the proposed MIRE FDE.
    A general description of how we expect States would use the 
proposed MIRE FDE is the following. First, the State would compile and 
monitor actual crash frequency data for each location. Next, the State 
would use the collected MIRE FDE to identify the roadway type and to 
use the safety performance function for that roadway type to estimate 
the predicted crash frequency for such a location. Then, the State 
would combine the predicted crash frequency for similar sites with the 
observed crash frequency at each particular location, using methods 
described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, to derive the expected 
average crash frequency for each location along its roadway network. 
Finally, States would rank locations based on one, or preferably 
several measures identified in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual. 
Examples of such measures include expected crash frequency or a measure 
of the ``excess'' crash frequency. The excess crash frequency may be 
computed as the difference between the predicted and expected crash 
frequency at the location or the difference between the observed and 
expected crash frequency at the location. For example, if a location's 
actual number of crashes is high compared to its expected number of 
crashes, that would be one indicator that a State should consider for 
deciding where to allocate safety resources. States would also consider 
other indicators when finally deciding when and where to allocation 
safety resources. Past number and rate of crashes, ``excess'' crash 
frequency, cost of countermeasure implementation and other factors 
would be considered in final project selection. States would use 
multiple indicators when deciding where and how to allocate safety 
resources with the ultimate goal to identify and implement projects 
that have the highest net benefits. We request comments on whether our 
understanding of how States would use the proposed MIRE FDE is correct.
    For example, ``excess crashes'' (i.e., the actual number of crashes 
minus the expected number of crashes) may not be the only indicator 
used for deciding where and how to allocate safety resources. A 
location's absolute number of crashes is also an important indicator to 
consider when seeking to identify the most cost-beneficial projects. 
For example, a State implementing a safety project at a location that 
performs well relative to its expected number of crashes--but still has 
a high number of total crashes--may be a more effective use of safety 
resources than implementing a project at a location that performs 
poorly relative to its expected number of crashes but has a smaller 
number of total crashes.
    The specific roadway data requirements to estimate expected average 
crash experience on our roadways using safety performance functions and 
related safety management methods include the (1) type of roadway 
(e.g., two-lane rural highway versus six-lane urban freeway) and (2) 
exposure to crash risk (traffic volume, as measured by AADT, and length 
for roadway segments and ramps). The FHWA believes that the proposed 
MIRE FDE is the minimum subset of data elements needed to characterize 
the type of roadway and exposure on all public roads. The proposed MIRE 
FDE are the data elements whose effects on safety are best understood 
and most commonly applied by the highway safety profession, as 
documented in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, and that are most 
appropriate for use in the initial screening of the State's roadway 
network for sites with the greatest potential for safety improvement 
through infrastructure investment. The FHWA acknowledges that other 
variables may be equally (or more) important for predicting future 
crashes. Because the proposed MIRE FDE are only a subset of variables 
that may be useful for estimating expected crashes, it is possible that 
using only the proposed MIRE FDE in prediction models may produce 
biased results of future crashes. After it issues a final rule, FHWA 
will continue to work with stakeholders to explore other data elements 
for inclusion in the regulations or guidance to improve prediction 
models, or data elements to remove from regulations in the future. The

[[Page 17473]]

FHWA invites comments on ways to minimize the cost of using the 
proposed MIRE FDE (e.g., incorporating the data into models), including 
any technical or other assistance that could be offered by FHWA.
    The proposed MIRE FDE can be divided into the following categories: 
(1) MIRE FDE that define individual roadway segments, intersections, 
and interchange/ramps, (2) MIRE FDE that delineate basic information 
needed to characterize the roadway type and exposure, and (3) MIRE FDE 
that identify governmental ownership and functional classification 
(these data are needed to satisfy other MAP-21 reporting requirements.
    Table 4 illustrates the MIRE FDE needed to uniquely identify 
individual segments, intersections and interchange/ramps in order to 
(a) associate crash data and traffic volume data to them, (b) locate 
them geospatially, and (c) conduct analyses on individual segments, 
intersections and interchange/ramps.

                      Table 4--MIRE FDE Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Segments                 Intersections     Interchange/ramps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment Identifier..............  Unique junction     Unique Interchange
                                   identifier.         Identifier.
Route Number....................  Location            Location
                                   Identifier for      Identifier for
                                   Road 1 Crossing     Roadway at
                                   Point.              Beginning Ramp
                                                       Terminal.
Route/Street Name...............  Location            Location
                                   Identifier for      Identifier for
                                   Road 2 Crossing     Roadway at End
                                   Point.              Ramp Terminal.
Federal-Aid/Route Type..........  Unique Approach
                                   Identifier.
Begin Point Segment Descriptor.
End Point Segment Descriptor.
Direction of Inventory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 illustrates the MIRE FDE needed to characterize the roadway 
type and exposure. This information is used as inputs to estimate the 
expected crash frequency on individual segments, intersections and 
interchanges/ramps using the methods described in the AASHTO Highway 
Safety Manual.

                Table 5--MIRE FDE Roadway Characteristics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Segments                 Intersections     Interchange/ramps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural/Urban Designation.........  Intersection/       Ramp Length.
                                   Junction Geometry.
Surface Type....................  Intersection/       Roadway Type at
                                   Junction Traffic    Beginning Ramp
                                   Control.            Terminal.
Segment Length..................  AADT [for each      Roadway Type at
                                   intersecting        End Ramp
                                   road].              Terminal.
Median Type.....................  AADT Year [for      Interchange Type.
                                   each intersecting
                                   road].
Access Control..................  ..................  Ramp AADT.
One/Two-Operations..............  ..................  Year of Ramp AADT.
Number of Through Lanes.
AADT.
AADT Year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 presents the MIRE FDE needed to satisfy MAP-21 reporting 
requirements (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(c)(i) and (ii)).

           Table 6--MIRE FDE for MAP-21 Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Segments                 Intersections     Interchange/ramps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Class................  ..................  Functional Class.
Type of Governmental Ownership..  ..................  Type of
                                                       Governmental
                                                       Ownership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 has determined that this proposed action is a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and 
within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to the 
significant public interest in regulations related to traffic safety. 
It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would not 
be economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 
as discussed below. This action complies with Executive Orders 12866 
and 13563 to improve regulation.
    The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule would not result in 
the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of greater than $100 million or 
more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Of the three requirements the 
Secretary was required to establish as a result of MAP-21 (i.e. MIRE 
FDE, SHSP update cycle, and HSIP Report Content and Schedule), FHWA 
believes that only the MIRE FDE would result in significant additional 
costs to the State DOTs.
    The SAFETEA-LU and existing regulation currently require States to 
update their SHSP on a regular basis. This proposed rulemaking requires 
States to update their SHSP at least every 5 years. Thirty nine States 
updated their SHSP or had an SHSP update underway within a 5-year 
timeframe. A number of those States are on the third version of their 
SHSP. Of those States that have not delivered an

[[Page 17474]]

SHSP update, they have an update planned or an update well underway. 
The FHWA has not estimated the cost of this proposal on States that 
update their SHSP less frequently than every 5 years. The FHWA believes 
the cost of this proposal is small, but invites comments on whether it 
would result in substantial costs, and how those costs could be 
estimated.
    The proposed rulemaking does not change the reporting schedule or 
frequency.
    There were only minimal changes to the HSIP report content, 
specifically the proposed requirement for States to report their annual 
safety performance targets in the HSIP report. The Transportation 
Performance Management: Safety NPRM being published concurrently with 
this NPRM accounts for the cost to develop the safety targets that will 
be reported in the existing HSIP report. The actual cost to report the 
targets is negligible and offset by the elimination of the transparency 
report requirement, which was a previously estimated burden of 200 
hours per State.
    Therefore, FHWA bases its cost-benefit analysis for the NPRM on the 
cost to collect, maintain, and use MIRE FDE only. The ``MIRE 
Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'' \20\ report was 
developed to support the MAP-21 State Safety Data Systems guidance 
published on December 27, 2012, and is the basis for the NPRM cost-
benefit analysis since the proposed MIRE FDE in this NPRM are based 
upon the recommended MIRE FDE in the guidance. The objective of this 
report was to estimate the potential cost to States in extending their 
statewide linear referencing system (LRS) and collecting the MIRE FDEs 
for the purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The 
cost estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional 
costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected 
through the HPMS or not already being collected for other purposes. The 
cost estimate does not include the cost of analyzing the MIRE FDE and 
performance measure data. States are currently required to conduct 
safety analysis using the best available data. States meet this 
requirement using a variety of methods, but most commonly States use 
crash frequency and crash rate to identify and prioritize potential 
locations for safety improvement. The MIRE FDE enables States to use 
advanced safety analysis methods to conduct this analysis. The FHWA 
does not believe that States will incur any additional costs from 
analyzing or otherwise using the proposed MIRE FDE. The FHWA believes 
that States will use methods incorporating the proposed MIRE FDE in 
lieu of existing methods. In other words, FHWA believes that States 
will discontinue using existing methods and, in place of these methods, 
conduct new analyses using the proposed MIRE FDE that will more 
accurately estimate the expected number of crashes at a location. The 
FHWA believes the overall net effect would be no new costs to States 
from using the MIRE FDE. The FHWA requests comments on whether this 
understanding is accurate, or whether States will incur new costs from 
using the proposed MIRE FDE to identify safety problems and projects. 
The basic cost-estimation methodology is to apply estimated unit costs 
to the public road mileage reported by States to the FHWA HPMS.\21\ The 
MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation Report documents 
the various unit-cost estimates and assumptions applied to each State's 
public road mileage to estimate the breakouts of total mileage by AADT 
range and by LRS coverage, the number of intersections and ramps, and 
the corresponding cost of the various components. The data used as the 
basis for the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report are available on 
the docket in a supplemental spreadsheet titled ``MIRE FDE Analysis 
Supplemental Tables.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'', 
FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is 
available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf.
    \21\ HPMS, FHWA, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/index.cfm#hm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the passage of MAP-21, States will be required to collect data 
on all public roads, including non-Federal-aid roads. To initiate this 
process, States will need to develop a common statewide relational LRS 
on all public roads that is linkable with crash data, as required by 23 
CFR 1.5 and described in recent FHWA guidance \22\ issued on August 7, 
2012. Based on this criteria, the report estimated that the cost of 
data collection for an average State is $1,362,800 to complete the LRS 
and initial MIRE FDE collection efforts, $66,600 for management and 
administration costs and $2,896,100 for maintenance costs over the 
analysis period of 2013-2029 (in 2013 U.S. dollars). These are average 
net present value costs (at a 0.5 percent discount rate) on a per State 
basis. As such, across the 50 States and the District of Columbia, it 
is possible that the aggregate cost for initial data collection would 
be approximately $69.5 million, and the annual maintenance cost would 
approach $11.5 million. This equates to approximately $225,000 on 
average for a State to maintain the data annually. Table 7 displays the 
total national annual cost of the proposed rule. Total costs are 
estimated to be $228.8 million undiscounted, $220.6 million discounted 
at 0.5 percent (the discount rate used in the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit 
Estimation Report), $185.8 million discounted at 3 percent, and $146.1 
million discounted at 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A copy of ``Guidance Memorandum on Geospatial Network for 
all Public Roads,'' issued August 7, 2012, can be viewed at 
www.regulations.gov under the docket number listed in the heading of 
this document.

                              Table 7--Total Estimated National Costs for MIRE FDE
                                           [2013-2029 Analysis period]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total national costs
                 Cost components                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Undiscounted        0.5%            3.00%           7.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Section 924.17:
    Linear Referencing System (LRS).............     $17,239,277     $17,180,594     $16,895,724     $16,467,622
    Initial Data Collection.....................      53,172,638      52,319,704      48,367,784      42,980,809
        Roadway Segments........................      37,941,135      37,332,527      34,512,650      30,668,794
        Intersections...........................       8,284,572       8,151,681       7,535,951       6,696,633
        Interchange/Ramp locations..............         832,734         819,376         757,485         673,120
        Volume Collection.......................       6,114,197       6,016,120       5,561,698       4,942,262
    Maintenance of data system..................     154,945,661     147,701,120     117,370,098      83,834,343

[[Page 17475]]

 
    Management & administration of data system..       3,449,812       3,394,474       3,138,075       2,788,571
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost..............................     228,807,387     220,595,892     185,771,683     146,071,346
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA did not endeavor to estimate the difference in the cost 
between the safety projects that States would implement using the 
proposed MIRE FDE and the cost of the projects that States would 
implement using current data and methods which do not incorporate the 
proposed MIRE FDE. The FHWA welcomes comments to assist it in 
estimating such costs at the final rule stage.
    The FHWA also welcomes comments from State DOTs and other 
interested members of the public on the economic, administrative, and 
operational impacts of this proposed rulemaking. Comments regarding 
specific burdens, impacts, and costs would assist FHWA in more fully 
appreciating and analyzing the impacts of these requirements. The FHWA 
also welcomes comments on the SHSP update cycle and related costs. In 
addition, FHWA seeks comments on whether agencies agree that the cost 
of collecting MIRE FDE as proposed in this NPRM is justified by the 
benefits, including the potential for improving roadway safety, if 
additional data should be required or if data proposed in this NPRM 
should be eliminated, and on alternative approaches to implementing the 
MIRE FDE statutory requirement in a way that increases net benefits. 
The FHWA also seeks comments on how long it would take a State to 
collect and implement the MIRE FDE requirements and other methods, 
tools, and technologies that could be used to support MIRE FDE data 
collection efforts, or the assumptions used in the MIRE Fundamental 
Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation report. We encourage comments on 
all facets of this proposed rulemaking.
    The FHWA initiated this proposed rulemaking to address the MAP-21 
requirements for the Secretary to establish the MIRE FDE, SHSP update 
cycle, and reporting content and schedule. Furthermore, MAP-21 requires 
States to report on their safety performance in relation to the 
national safety performance measures in 23 U.S.C. 150(e). The 
collection and use of the MIRE FDE information would enhance States 
ability to:

 Develop quantifiable annual performance targets
 Develop a strategy for identifying and programming projects 
and activities that allow the State to meet the performance targets
 Conduct data analyses supporting the identification and 
evaluation of proposed countermeasures

    This proposed rulemaking will improve HSIP implementation efforts 
resulting in a significant impact on improving safety on our Nation's 
roads. Collecting the MIRE FDE data and integrating those data into the 
safety analysis process would support more effective safety investment 
decisionmaking by improving an agency's ability to locate problem areas 
with the greatest potential for safety improvement and apply the most 
appropriate countermeasures. More effective safety investments yield 
more lives saved and injuries avoided per dollar invested.
    The benefits of this rule would be the monetized value of the 
crashes, fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage avoided by 
the projects identified and implemented using the proposed MIRE FDE 
minus the foregone monetized value of the crashes, fatalities, serious 
injuries, and property damage avoided by the projects identified and 
implemented using current data and methods used by States to allocate 
safety resources. The FHWA has not endeavored to estimate the benefits 
of this rule in this way, but welcomes comments on how it could 
estimate such benefits at the final rule stage. Instead, FHWA conducted 
a break-even analysis. The ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-
Benefit Estimation'' \23\ report estimated the reduction in fatalities 
and injuries that would be needed to exceed 1:1 and 2:1 ratios of 
benefits to costs. Table 8 summarizes these needed benefits. The injury 
costs used in the report reflect the average injury costs based on the 
national distribution of injuries in the General Estimate System using 
a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation,'' 
FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is 
available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf. The document found at this link 
can also be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

                Table 8--Estimated Benefits Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1 and 2:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of lives saved/injuries avoided nationally
                    Benefits                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Undiscounted        0.5%            3.00%           7.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit/Cost Ratio of 1:1:
     of lives saved (fatalities).......              19              19              21              23
     of injuries avoided...............            1246            1263            1353            1517
Benefit/Cost Ratio of 2:1:
     of lives saved (fatalities).......              38              39              42              47
     of injuries avoided...............            2493            2527            2706            3034
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the 2012 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,100,000 and 
$107,438 for

[[Page 17476]]

an injury,\24\ results in an estimated reduction of 0.38 fatalities and 
24.77 injuries per average State over the 2013-2029 analysis period 
would be needed to result in a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1:1. To 
achieve a benefit-cost ratio of 2:1, fatalities would need to be 
reduced by 0.76 and injuries by 49.54 per average State over the same 
analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Memorandum on 
Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in 
U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, February 28, 2013. 
http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-values-used-in-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One study on the effectiveness of the HSIP found: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Wu, K.-F., Himes, S.C., and Pietrucha, M.T., ``Evaluation 
of Effectiveness of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement 
Program,'' Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2318, pp. 23-34, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The magnitude of States' fatal crash reduction was highly 
associated with the years of available crash data, prioritizing method, 
and use of roadway inventory data. Moreover, States that prioritized 
hazardous sites by using more detailed roadway inventory data and the 
empirical Bayes method had the greatest reductions; all of those States 
relied heavily on the quality of crash data system.''
    For example, this study cites Colorado's safety improvements, 
noting ``Deployment of advanced methods on all projects and acquisition 
of high-quality data may explain why Colorado outperformed the rest of 
the country in reduction of fatal crashes.'' \26\ Illinois was also 
high on this study's list of States with the highest percentage 
reduction in fatalities. In a case study of Illinois' use of AASHTO 
Highway Safety Manual methods, an Illinois DOT official noted that use 
of these methods ``requires additional roadway data, but has improved 
the sophistication of safety analyses in Illinois resulting in better 
decisions to allocate limited safety resources.'' \27\ Another case 
study of Ohio's adoption of a tool to apply the roadway safety 
management methods described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual 
concluded, ``In Ohio, one of the benefits of applying various HSM 
screening methods was identifying ways to overcome some of the 
limitations of existing practices. For example, the previous mainframe 
methodology typically over-emphasized urban ``sites of promise''--
locations identified for further investigation and potential 
countermeasure implementation. These locations were usually in the 
largest urban areas, often with a high frequency of crashes that were 
low in severity. Now, several screening methods can be used in the 
network screening process resulting in greater identification of rural 
corridors and projects. This identification enables Ohio's safety 
program to address more factors contributing to fatal and injury 
crashes across the State, instead of being limited to high-crash 
locations in urban areas, where crashes often result in minor or no 
injuries.'' \28\ Another document quantified these benefits, indicating 
that the number of fatalities per identified mile is 67 percent higher, 
the number of serious injuries per mile is 151 percent higher, and the 
number of total crashes is 105 percent higher with these new methods 
than with their former methods.\29\ In summary, all three States 
experienced benefits to the effectiveness of safety investment 
decisionmaking through the use of methods that included roadway data 
akin to the MIRE FDE and crash data in their highway safety analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Ibid.
    \27\ Highway Safety Manual Case Study 4: Development of Safety 
Performance Functions for Network Screening in Illinois. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/il_cstd.cfm.
    \28\ Highway Safety Manual Case Study 2: Implementing a New 
Roadway Safety Management Process with SafetyAnalyst in Ohio. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/oh_cstd.cfm.
    \29\ Hughes, J. and Council, F.M., ``How Good Data Lead to 
Better Safety Decisions,'' ITE Journal, April 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, 32,885 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the 
United States, and an estimated 2.24 million people were 
injured.30 31 The decrease in fatalities needed to achieve a 
1:1 cost-benefit ratio represent a 0.4 percent reduction of annual 
fatalities using 2010 statistics. The experiences to date in States 
that are already collecting and using roadway data comparable to the 
MIRE FDE suggests there is a very high likelihood that the benefits of 
collecting and using the proposed MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs. We 
believe that the proposed MIRE FDE in combination with crash data will 
support more cost-effective safety investment decisions and ultimately 
yield greater reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per dollar 
invested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--Fatality 
Analysis Reporting System: can be accessed at the following Internet 
Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
    \31\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--National 
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES): 
can be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/NASS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 
96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of these 
changes on small entities and anticipates that this proposed rule would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed rulemaking addresses the HSIP. As such, it 
affects only States, and States are not included in the definition of 
small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the RFA does not 
apply, and I hereby certify that the proposed action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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, 109 
Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). As part of this evaluation, FHWA has 
determined that this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure 
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of greater than $100 million or more in any one year (2 
U.S.C. 1532). The FHWA bases its analysis on the ``MIRE Fundamental 
Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'' Report.\32\ The objective of 
this report was to estimate the potential cost to States in developing 
a statewide LRS and collecting the MIRE FDEs for the purposes of 
implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost estimates 
developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs that a 
State would incur based on what is not being collected through the HPMS 
or not already being collected through other efforts. The funds used to 
establish a data collection system, collect initial data, and maintain 
annual data collection are reimbursable to the States through the HSIP 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'', 
FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is 
available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following 
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed 
in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, 
local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the 
definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or 
tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the 
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal 
Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of 
flexibility.

[[Page 17477]]

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 
4, 1999. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed 
rulemaking would not preempt any State law or State regulation or 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental 
functions.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 
summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a 
significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive 
Order 13211 is not required.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and 
Construction

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply 
to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) prior to conducting or sponsoring a 
``collection of information'' as defined by the PRA. The FHWA currently 
has OMB approval under ``Highway Safety Improvement Programs'' (OMB 
Control No: 2125-0025) to collect the information required by State's 
annual HSIP reports. The FHWA desires to concurrently update this 
request to reflect MAP-21 requirements as proposed in this NPRM.\33\ 
The FHWA invites comments about our intention to request OMB approval 
for a new information collection to include the additional components 
required in this NPRM to reflect MAP-21 requirements described in the 
Supplementary Information below. Any action that might be contemplated 
in subsequent phases of this proceeding will be analyzed for the 
purpose of the PRA for its impact to this current information 
collection. The FHWA will submit the proposed collections of 
information to OMB for review and approval at the time the NPRM is 
issued and, accordingly, seeks comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This information collection request (ICR) can be viewed at 
the following Internet Web site: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201308-2125-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplementary Information

    The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving 
highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. In 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 U.S.C. 130(g), Railway-Highway 
Crossings Program, FHWA proposes in this NPRM to collect a report 
describing progress being made to implement the HSIP and a report 
describing progress being made to implement railway-highway grade 
crossing improvements. The FHWA proposes that the State DOTs continue 
to annually produce and submit these reports to FHWA by August 31. The 
FHWA proposes the HSIP report to (1) describe the structure of the 
HSIP; (2) describes the progress in implementing HSIP projects; (3) 
describes progress in achieving safety performance targets; and (4) 
assesses the effectiveness of the improvements. The States currently 
report this information, with the exception of the proposed requirement 
that State's document the established safety performance targets for 
the following calendar year in their annual HSIP report (that will be 
developed as per the Transportation Performance Management: Safety NPRM 
being published concurrently with this NPRM). Similarly, FHWA proposes 
the Railway-Highway Crossing Program Report continue to describe 
progress being made to implement railway-highway grade crossing 
improvements in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 130(g), and the effectiveness 
of these improvements.
    The information contained in the annual HSIP reports provides FHWA 
with a means for monitoring the effectiveness of these programs and may 
be used by Congress for determining the future HSIP program structure 
and funding levels. In addition, FHWA uses the information collected as 
part of the HSIP reports to prepare an HSIP National Summary 
Report,\34\ which summarizes the number of HSIP projects by type and 
cost. The Railway-Highway Crossing Program Reports are used by FHWA to 
produce and submit biennial reports to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/nsbrpt_2009_2012.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be able to produce these reports, State DOTs must have safety 
data and analysis systems capable of identifying and determining the 
relative severity of hazardous highway locations on all public roads, 
based on both crash experience and crash potential, as well as 
determining the effectiveness of highway safety improvement projects. 
As discussed in this NPRM, FHWA proposes to require States to collect 
and use a subset of MIRE as part of their safety data system for this 
purpose as mandated under 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2).
    Section 148(h)(3), of title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to 
make the State's HSIP reports \35\ and SHSP \36\ available on the 
Department's Web site. The FHWA proposes States use the online 
reporting tool to support the annual HSIP reporting process. Additional 
information is available on the Office of Safety Web site at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/onrpttool/. Reporting into the 
online reporting tool meets all report requirements and DOT Web site 
compatibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/.
    \36\ http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/state_links.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A burden estimate for the HSIP Reports and MIRE FDE is summarized 
below in Table 5. The HSIP Reports burden represents the annual burden 
per each collection cycle; whereas, the MIRE FDE burden represents the 
initial data collection and maintenance burdens over the 2013-2029 
analysis period, consistent with the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation 
Report. This report calculated the MIRE FDE costs as a dollar figure. 
To turn this into an equivalent hourly burden, we took the total costs 
(including technology and data collection by vendors) and turned them 
into labor hours ($55/hour, including overhead).

[[Page 17478]]



                  Table 5--Burden Estimate for HSIP Reports and MIRE FDE Information Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             MIRE FDE (initial
                                         HSIP Reports        collection spread     MIRE FDE (maintenance for 16
                                                               over 5 years)                  years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents.......................    51 State Transportation Departments, including the District of Columbia.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency.........................  Annually, by August    Once, within 5 years   Annual.
                                     31st.                  of HSIP final rule
                                                            publication.
Estimated Average Burden per        250 hours............  25,987 hours *.......  52,656 hours.**
 Response.
Estimated total burden hours......  12,750 hours.........  1,325,360 hours *....  2,685,475 hours.**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Over 5 years of data collection.
** Over 16 year (2013-2029) analysis period (from the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report).

    Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this 
information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection 
is necessary for FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated 
burdens; (3) ways for FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and 
clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden 
could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without 
reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will 
summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's 
clearance of this information collection.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not 
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

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 Executive Order 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).

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has 
determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice 
issues.

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.

    Issued on: March 21, 2014.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Deputy Administrator, FHWA.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to revise title 23, 
Code of Federal Regulations part 924 as follows:

PART 924--HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Sec.
924.1 Purpose.
924.3 Definitions.
924.5 Policy.
924.7 Program structure.
924.9 Planning.
924.11 Implementation.
924.13 Evaluation.
924.15 Reporting.
924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, and 315; 49 CFR 1.85.


Sec.  924.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the 
development, implementation, and evaluation of a highway safety 
improvement program (HSIP) in each State.


Sec.  924.3  Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions in 23 
U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. In addition, the following 
definitions apply:
    Hazard index formula means any safety or crash prediction formula 
used for determining the relative likelihood of hazardous conditions at 
railway-highway grade crossings, taking into consideration weighted 
factors, and severity of crashes.
    Highway means,
    (1) A road, street, or parkway and all associated elements such as 
a right-of-way, bridge, railroad-highway crossing, tunnel, drainage 
structure, sign, guardrail, protective structure, etc.;
    (2) A roadway facility as may be required by the United States 
Customs and Immigration Services in connection with the operation of an 
international bridge or tunnel; and
    (3) A facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists pursuant to 
23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(A).
    Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) means a State safety 
program to implement the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148, including 
the development of a Strategic 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 that are consistent with a State strategic 
highway safety plan

[[Page 17479]]

(SHSP) and that either corrects or improves a hazardous road segment 
location or feature, or addresses a highway safety problem. Highway 
safety improvement projects can include both infrastructure and non-
infrastructure projects. Examples of projects are described in 23 
U.S.C. 148(a).
    MIRE Fundamental data elements means the minimal subset of the 
roadway and traffic data elements established in FHWA's Model Inventory 
of Roadway Elements (MIRE) that are used to support a State's data-
driven safety program.
    Public grade crossing means a railway-highway grade crossing where 
the roadway (including associated sidewalks, pathways and shared use 
paths) is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public 
authority and open to public travel, including non-motorized users. All 
roadway approaches must be under the jurisdiction of a public roadway 
authority, and no roadway approach may be on private property.
    Public road means any highway, road, or street under the 
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public 
travel, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal 
land.
    Reporting year means a one-year period defined by the State. It may 
be the Federal fiscal year, State fiscal year or calendar year, unless 
noted otherwise in this section.
    Road safety audit means a formal safety performance examination of 
an existing or future road or intersection by an independent 
multidisciplinary audit team.
    Safety data includes, but is not limited to, crash, roadway, and 
traffic data on all public roads. For railway-highway grade crossings, 
safety data also includes the characteristics of highway and train 
traffic, licensing, and vehicle data.
    Safety stakeholder means, but is not limited to,
    (1) A highway safety representative of the Governor of the State;
    (2) Regional transportation planning organizations and metropolitan 
planning organizations, if any;
    (3) Representatives of major modes of transportation;
    (4) State and local traffic enforcement officials;
    (5) A highway-rail grade crossing safety representative of the 
Governor of the State;
    (6) Representatives conducting a motor carrier safety program under 
section 31102, 31106, or 31309 of title 49;
    (8) Motor vehicle administration agencies;
    (9) County transportation officials;
    (10) State representatives of non-motorized users; and
    (11) Other Federal, State, tribal and local safety stakeholders.
    Serious injury means ``suspected serious injury'' as defined in the 
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), latest edition.
    Spot safety improvement means an improvement or set of improvements 
that is implemented at a specific location on the basis of location-
specific crash experience or other data-driven means.
    Strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-
disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a State Department 
of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.
    Systemic safety improvement means an improvement or set of 
improvements that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway 
features that are correlated with particular severe crash types.


Sec.  924.5  Policy.

    (a) Each State shall develop, implement, and evaluate on an annual 
basis a HSIP that has the objective to significantly reduce fatalities 
and serious injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads.
    (b) HSIP funds shall be used for highway safety improvement 
projects that maximize opportunities to advance safety consistent with 
the State's SHSP and have the greatest potential to reduce the State's 
fatality and serious injuries. Prior to approving the use of HSIP funds 
for non-infrastructure related safety projects, FHWA will assess the 
extent to which other eligible Federal funds provided to the State for 
non-infrastructure safety programs (including but not limited to those 
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) are programmed.
    (c) Safety improvements should also be incorporated into projects 
funded by other Federal-aid programs, such as the National Highway 
Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program 
(STP). 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 or local/tribal 
jurisdiction's substantial conformance with the National MUTCD or FHWA-
approved State MUTCDs and supplements in accordance with part 655, 
subpart F, of this title.


Sec.  924.7  Program structure.

    (a) The HSIP shall include:
    (1) A Strategic Highway Safety Plan;
    (2) A Railway-Highway Crossing Program; and
    (3) A program of highway safety improvement projects.
    (b) The HSIP shall include separate processes for the planning, 
implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP components described in 
section 924.7(a) for all public roads in the State. These processes 
shall be developed by the States in cooperation with 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.


Sec.  924.9  Planning.

    (a) The HSIP planning process shall incorporate:
    (1) A process for collecting and maintaining safety data on all 
public roads. Roadway data shall include, at a minimum, the MIRE 
Fundamental Data Elements as established in section 924.17. Railway-
highway grade crossing data shall include all fields from the US DOT 
National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.
    (2) A process for advancing the State's capabilities for safety 
data collection by improving the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
uniformity, integration, and accessibility of their safety data on all 
public roads, resulting in improved analysis capabilities.
    (3) A process for updating the SHSP that identifies and analyzes 
highway safety problems and opportunities in accordance with 23 
U.S.C.148. An SHSP update shall:
    (i) Be completed no later than five years from the date of the 
previous approved version;
    (ii) Be developed by the State Department of Transportation in 
consultation with safety stakeholders;
    (iii) Provide a detailed description of the update process, as 
approved by the FHWA Division Administrator;
    (iv) Be approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible 
State agency official that is delegated by the Governor;
    (v) Adopt performance-based goals that:
    (A) Are consistent with performance measures established by FHWA in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and

[[Page 17480]]

    (B) Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;
    (vi) Analyze and make effective use of State, regional, local and 
tribal safety data and address safety problems and opportunities on all 
public roads and for all road users;
    (vii) Identify key emphasis areas and strategies that significantly 
reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries, focus resources on 
areas of greatest need, and possess the greatest potential for a high 
rate of return on safety investments;
    (viii) Address engineering, management, operations, education, 
enforcement, and emergency services elements of highway safety as key 
features when determining SHSP strategies;
    (ix) Consider the results of State, regional, local, and tribal 
transportation and highway safety planning processes and demonstrate 
mutual consultation among partners in the development of transportation 
safety plans;
    (x) Provide strategic direction for other State and local/tribal 
transportation plans, such as the HSIP, the Highway Safety Plan, and 
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan; and
    (xi) Describe the process and potential resources for implementing 
strategies in the emphasis areas.
    (4) A process for analyzing safety data to:
    (i) Develop a program of highway safety improvement projects, in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), to reduce fatal and serious 
injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads through the 
implementation of a comprehensive program of systemic and spot safety 
improvement projects.
    (ii) Develop a Railway-Highway Crossings program that:
    (A) Considers the relative hazard of public railway-highway grade 
crossings based on a hazard index formula;
    (B) Includes onsite inspection of public grade crossings;
    (C) Results in a program of highway safety improvement projects at 
railway-highway grade 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 including:
    (i) The potential reduction in the number and rate of fatalities 
and serious injuries;
    (ii) The cost effectiveness of the projects and the resources 
available; and
    (iii) The priorities in the SHSP.
    (b) The planning process of the HSIP may be financed with funds 
made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), and 505 and, where 
applicable in metropolitan planning areas, through 23 U.S.C. 104(d). 
The eligible use of the program funding categories listed for HSIP 
planning efforts is subject to that program's eligibility requirements 
and cost allocation procedures as per 2 CFR part 225 and 49 CFR 18.22.
    (c) Highway safety improvement projects, including non-
infrastructure safety projects, to be funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 
shall be carried out as part of the Statewide and Metropolitan 
Transportation Planning Process consistent with the requirements of 23 
U.S.C. 134 and 135, and 23 CFR part 450. States shall be able to 
distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in 
the STIP.


Sec.  924.11  Implementation.

    (a) The HSIP shall be implemented in accordance with the 
requirements of section 924.9 of this Part.
    (b) States shall incorporate an implementation plan for collecting 
MIRE fundamental data elements in their State's Traffic Records 
Strategic Plan by July 1, 2015. States shall complete collection of the 
MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 
2020.
    (c) The SHSP shall include or be accompanied by actions that 
address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies will be implemented.
    (d) Funds set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program under 
23 U.S.C. 130 shall be used to implement railway-highway grade crossing 
safety projects on any public road. If a State demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the FHWA Division Administrator that the State has met 
its needs for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway 
grade crossings, the State may use funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 
130 for other types of highway safety improvement projects pursuant to 
the Special Rule at 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2).
    (e) Highway safety improvement projects may also be implemented 
with other funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104(b) subject to the 
eligibility requirements applicable to each program.
    (f) Award of contracts for highway safety improvement projects 
shall be in accordance with 23 CFR part 635 and part 636, where 
applicable, for highway construction projects, 23 CFR part 172 for 
engineering and design services contracts related to highway 
construction projects, or 49 CFR part 18 for non-highway construction 
projects.
    (g) 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.


Sec.  924.13  Evaluation.

    (a) The HSIP evaluation process shall include:
    (1) A process to analyze and assess the results achieved by highway 
safety improvement projects, in terms of reducing the number and rate 
of fatalities and serious injuries contributing towards the performance 
targets established as per 23 U.S.C. 150.
    (2) An evaluation of the SHSP as part of the regularly recurring 
update process to:
    (i) Confirm the validity of the emphasis areas and strategies based 
on analysis of current safety data; and
    (ii) Identify issues related to the SHSP's process, implementation 
and progress that should be considered during each subsequent SHSP 
update.
    (b) The information resulting from 23 CFR 924.13(a)(1) shall be 
used:
    (1) To update safety data used in the planning process in 
accordance with 23 CFR 924.9;
    (2) For setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects;
    (3) For assessing the overall effectiveness of the HSIP; and
    (4) For reporting required by 23 CFR 924.15.
    (c) The evaluation process may be financed with funds made 
available under 23 U.S.C. 104(b) (3), and 505, and for metropolitan 
planning areas, 23 U.S.C. 104(d). The eligible use of the program 
funding categories listed for HSIP evaluation efforts is subject to 
that program's eligibility requirements and cost allocation procedures 
as per 2 CFR part 225 and 49 CFR 18.22.


Sec.  924.15  Reporting.

    (a) For the period of the previous reporting year, each State shall 
submit to the FHWA Division Administrator, via FHWA's HSIP online 
reporting tool, 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):
    (1) A report describing the progress being made to implement the 
HSIP that:
    (i) Describes the structure of the HSIP: This section shall 
describe how HSIP funds are administered in the State and include a 
summary of the methodology used to develop the programs and projects 
being implemented under the HSIP on all public roads.

[[Page 17481]]

    (ii) Describes the progress in implementing highway safety 
improvement projects: This section shall:
    (A) Compare the funds programmed in the STIP for highway safety 
improvement projects and those obligated during the reporting year; and
    (B) Provide a list of highway safety improvement projects that were 
obligated during the reporting year, including non-infrastructure 
projects. Each project listed shall identify how it relates to the 
State SHSP.
    (iii) Describes the progress in achieving safety performance 
targets: This section shall provide an overview of general highway 
safety trends, document the established safety performance targets for 
the following calendar year and present information related to the 
applicability of the special rules defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(g). General 
highway safety trends and safety performance targets shall be presented 
by number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries on all public 
roads by calendar year. To the maximum extent practicable, general 
highway safety trends shall also be presented by functional 
classification and roadway ownership.
    (iv) Assesses the effectiveness of the improvements: This section 
shall describe the effectiveness of groupings or similar types of 
highway safety improvement projects previously implemented under the 
HSIP.
    (v) Is compatible with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794(d), 
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
    (2) A report describing progress being made to implement railway-
highway grade crossing improvements in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
130(g), and the effectiveness of these improvements.
    (b) The preparation of the State's annual reports may be financed 
with funds made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3).


Sec.  924.17  MIRE Fundamental Data Elements.

    Fundamental data elements for the collection of roadway data

  Table 1--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Roads With AADT =400 Vehicles per Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRE Name (MIRE Number)[supcaret]
Roadway Segment                          Intersection
Segment Identifier (12)................  Unique Junction Identifier
                                          (120).
Route Number (8) *.....................  Location Identifier for Road 1
                                          Crossing Point (122).
Route/street Name (9) *................  Location Identifier for Road 2
                                          Crossing Point (123).
Federal Aid/Route Type (21) *.                                 (126)
Rural/Urban Designation (20) *.                                 Control (131).
Surface Type (23) *....................  AADT (79) [for Each
                                          Intersecting Road].
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) *..  AADT Year (80) [for Each
                                          Intersecting Road].
End Point Segment Descriptor (11) *.     ...............................
Segment Length (13) *.                   ...............................
Direction of Inventory (18)............  Unique Approach Identifier
                                          (139).
Functional Class (19) *.                 ...............................
Median Type (54).                        ...............................
Access Control (22) *.                   ...............................
One/Two-Way Operations (91) *..........          Interchange/Ramp
Number of Through Lanes (31) *.........  Unique Interchange Identifier
                                          (178).
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79) *....  Location Identifier for Roadway
                                          at Beginning Ramp Terminal
                                          (197).
AADT Year (80) *.......................  Location Identifier for Roadway
                                          at Ending Ramp Terminal (201).
Type of Governmental Ownership (4) *...  Ramp Length (187).
                                         Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp
                                          Terminal (195).
                                         Roadway Type at Ending Ramp
                                          Terminal (199).
                                         Interchange Type (182).
                                         Ramp AADT (191) *.
                                         Year of Ramp AADT (192) *.
                                         Functional Class (19) *.
                                         Type of Governmental Ownership
                                          (4) *.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[supcaret] Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0,
  Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/collateral/mire_report.pdf.
* Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are
  required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-
  separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all
  functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.


    Table 2--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Roads With AADT <400
                            Vehicles Per Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRE Name (MIRE Number) [supcaret]
Roadway Segment                          Intersection
Segment Identifier (12)................  Unique Junction Identifier
                                          (120).
Functional Class (19) *................  Intersection/Junction Geometry
                                          (126).
Surface Type (23) *....................  Location Identifier for Road 1
                                          Crossing Point (122).
Type of Governmental Ownership (4) *...  Location Identifier for Road 2
                                          Crossing Point (123).
Number of Through Lanes (31) *.........  Intersection/Junction Traffic
                                          Control (131).
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79) *.     ...............................
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) *.   ...............................
End Point Segment Descriptor (11) *.     ...............................
Rural/Urban Designation (20) *.          ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[supcaret] Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0,
  Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://www.mireinfo.org/collateral/mire_report.pdf.
* Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are
  required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-
  separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all
  functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.


[[Page 17482]]

[FR Doc. 2014-06681 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P