[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 326-393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30085]



[[Page 325]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 2

January 5, 2015

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Highway Administration





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





23 CFR Part 490





National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition 
for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for 
the National Highway Performance Program; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 326]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 490

[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0053]
RIN 2125-AF53


National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement 
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge 
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Section 1203 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) declared that performance management will 
transform the Federal-aid highway program and refocus it on national 
transportation goals, increase accountability and transparency of the 
Federal-aid highway program and improve project decisionmaking through 
performance-based planning and programming. Section 1203 of MAP-21 
identifies the national transportation goals and requires the Secretary 
to promulgate a rule to establish performance measures in specified 
Federal-aid highway program areas. The FHWA is issuing three separate 
NPRMs to meet this requirement, and this is the second NPRM.
    This NPRM proposes to establish measures for State Departments of 
Transportation (State DOTs) to use to carry out the National Highway 
Performance Program (NHPP) and to assess the condition of the 
following: pavements on the National Highway System (NHS) (excluding 
the Interstate System), bridges on the NHS, and pavements on the 
Interstate System. The NHPP is a core Federal-aid highway program that 
provides support for the condition and performance of the NHS and the 
construction of new facilities on the NHS, and ensures that investments 
of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support 
progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a 
State's asset management plan for the NHS. This NPRM proposes 
regulations for the new performance aspects of the NHPP, which address: 
measures, targets, and reporting. The FHWA intends to make these 
performance aspects of the NHPP available to the public in a format 
that is easily understandable and accessible for download.
    This second NPRM also includes a discussion of the collective 
rulemaking actions FHWA has or intends to take to implement MAP-21 
performance-related provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015. Late 
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number FHWA 
USDOT-2013-0053 by any one of the following methods:
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590;
    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
    Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket 
name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for 
this rulemaking (2125-AF53). Note that all comments received will be 
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act 
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francine Shaw Whitson, Office of 
Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028, or Anne Christenson, Office of Chief 
Counsel, (202) 366-1356, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA has other rulemaking efforts 
underway to establish the measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c). The 
first performance measure NPRM covered the proposed performance 
management measures to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program 
(HSIP) and to assess serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile 
traveled (VMT), and the number of serious injuries and fatalities. That 
NPRM was published on March 11, 2014 (79 FR 13846). The third 
performance measure NPRM will focus on measures for the performance of 
the NHS, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 
Program, and freight movement on the Interstate System. This last NPRM 
will also include a discussion that summarizes all three of the 
proposed rules to establish the measures required under 23 U.S.C. 
150(c).
    This current NPRM also proposes: The additional definitions that 
would be applicable to the proposed regulations; the process State DOTs 
and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) would use to establish 
performance targets that reflect the measures proposed in this 
rulemaking; and the methodology State DOTs would use to assess 
compliance with the target achievement provision specified in MAP-21. 
The NPRM also proposes the process State DOTs would follow to report on 
progress toward the achievement of pavement and bridge condition-
related performance targets. Finally, this NPRM proposes minimum levels 
for pavement and conditions on the Interstate System.

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach
    A. Consultation With State Departments of Transportation, 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Stakeholders.
    B. Broader Public Consultation
    C. Summary of Viewpoints Received
IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background
V. Performance Management Measure Analysis
    A. Selection of National Performance Management Measures for the 
NHPP: Pavement and Bridge
    B. Assessment of Selected Measures for the NHPP: Pavement and 
Bridge
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and 
Proposed National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP: 
Pavement and Bridge
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid highway

[[Page 327]]

program by establishing new requirements for performance management to 
ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. 
Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of 
the Federal-aid highway program and provides for a framework to support 
improved investment decision making through a focus on performance 
outcomes for key national transportation goals. As part of performance 
management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds would make 
transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make 
progress towards national goals. The national performance goal for 
bridge and pavement condition is to maintain the condition of highway 
infrastructure assets in a state of good repair. The purpose of this 
rulemaking is to implement these MAP-21 performance management 
requirements.
    Prior to MAP-21, there were no explicit requirements for State DOTs 
to demonstrate that their transportation program supported national 
performance outcomes. State DOTs were not required to measure 
condition, to establish targets, to assess progress towards targets, or 
to report on pavement and bridge condition in a nationally consistent 
manner that FHWA could use to assess the condition of the entire 
system. It was also difficult for FHWA to look at the effectiveness of 
the Federal-aid highway program as a means to address surface 
transportation performance at a national level.
    This proposed rule is one of several rulemakings that DOT is or 
will be conducting to implement MAP-21's new performance management 
framework. The collective rulemakings would establish the regulations 
needed to more effectively evaluate and report on surface 
transportation performance across the country. This rulemaking proposes 
regulations that would: provide for greater consistency in the 
reporting of pavement and bridge conditions; require the establishment 
of targets that can be aggregated at the national level; require 
reporting in a consistent manner on progress achievement; and lastly 
require State DOTs to make significant progress. It would also require 
State DOTs to maintain their bridges and pavements at or above a 
minimum condition level. State DOTs would be expected to use the 
information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to 
better inform their transportation planning and programming 
decisionmaking. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid program 
that would result from this rulemaking would provide FHWA the ability 
to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably 
assess the impacts of Federal funding investments.
    The FHWA is required to establish measures through a rulemaking to 
assess performance in 12 areas generalized as follows: (1) Serious 
injuries per VMT; (2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious 
injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the 
Interstate System; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS; 
\1\ (7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) traffic congestion; (9) on-
road mobile source emissions; (10) freight movement on the Interstate 
System; (11) performance of the Interstate System; and (12) performance 
of the non-Interstate NHS.\2\ This rulemaking is the second of three 
NPRMs that together propose the establishment of performance measures 
for States DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway 
programs and to assess performance in each of these 12 areas. This 
rulemaking seeks to establish national measures for areas 5, 6, and 7, 
in the above list. Other rulemakings would establish national measures 
for the remaining areas in the above list. This NPRM proposes to 
establish performance measures to assess pavement and bridge conditions 
on the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of 
carrying out the NHPP. The four proposed measures to assess pavement 
condition are: (1) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in 
Good condition; (2) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in 
Poor condition; (3) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the 
Interstate System) in Good condition; and (4) a Percentage of pavements 
on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Poor condition. The two 
proposed performance measures for assessing bridge condition are: (1) 
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Good Condition; and (2) 
Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor Condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Non-Interstate NHS'' and ``NHS (excluding the 
Interstate)'' are used interchangeably throughout this NPRM and have 
the same meaning.
    \2\ These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which 
requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance 
or condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM also proposes to establish the minimum level for pavement 
condition for the Interstate System as required by the statute. In 
addition, this NPRM proposes to establish the process for State DOTs 
and MPOs to use to establish and report targets and the process that 
FHWA will use to assess progress State DOTs have made in achieving 
targets.

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

    The FHWA proposes the establishment of: Performance measures to be 
used by State DOTs to assess the condition of pavements and bridges and 
to carry out the NHPP; the process for State DOTs and MPOs to establish 
targets for each of the measures; the methodology to determine whether 
State DOTs have achieved their targets; the process for State DOTs to 
use to report on progress for targets; and the minimum levels for 
pavement conditions on the Interstate System for purposes of carrying 
out 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). The FHWA also proposes to incorporate the 
minimum level for condition of bridges on the NHS as required by 23 
U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
    This NPRM proposes to add to subpart A general information 
applicable to Part 490, to include requirements for target 
establishment, reporting on progress, and how determinations would be 
made on whether State DOTs have made significant progress toward NHPP 
targets. Subpart A also would include definitions and clarify 
terminology associated with target establishment, reporting, and making 
significant progress. Subparts C and D propose performance measures to 
assess pavement and bridge conditions. Section 490.105 proposes the 
process to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for each 
of the four pavement and two bridge measures. The State DOTs would 
establish 2- and 4-year targets for a 4-year performance period for the 
condition of infrastructure assets. State DOTs would establish their 
first statewide targets 1 year after the effective date of this rule. 
The MPOs would establish targets by either supporting the State DOT's 
statewide target, or defining a target unique to the metropolitan area 
each time the State DOT establishes a target. The MPOs would be 
provided a 180-day period following the date at which the State DOT 
establishes a target to establish their pavement and bridge targets.
    Section 490.107 proposes performance reporting for State DOTs and 
MPOs. The State DOT would submit their established targets in a 
baseline report at the beginning of the performance period and report 
progress at the midpoint and end of the performance period. State DOTs 
would be allowed to adjust their 4-year target at the midpoint of the 
performance period. The MPOs would not be required to provide separate 
reporting to FHWA; however, State DOTs and MPOs

[[Page 328]]

would need to agree to a target establishment reporting process in the 
Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in accordance with 23 CFR part 450.
    Section 490.109 proposes the method FHWA would use to determine if 
State DOTs have achieved or have made significant progress toward the 
achievement of their NHPP targets. Significant progress would be 
determined from an analysis of estimated performance/condition and 
measured performance/condition of each of the NHPP targets. If 
applicable, State DOTs would have the opportunity to discuss why 
targets were not achieved or significant progress was not made. If a 
State DOT fails to achieve significant progress for two consecutive 
biennial performance reporting periods (total of 4 years), then the 
State DOT is required to document in their next biennial performance 
report and encouraged to document sooner, the actions they will 
undertake to achieve their targets.
    In subparts C and D, Sec. Sec.  490.305 and 490.405 propose the 
pavement and bridge performance measures and program-specific 
definitions to ensure that the proposed performance measures are clear 
and consistent.
    Sections 490.307 and 490.407 propose that State DOTs and MPOs use a 
total of six measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges 
on the NHS. The proposed pavement measures would be applicable to both 
Interstate and non-Interstate NHS mainline roads and the proposed 
bridge measures would be applicable for all NHS bridges, including 
bridges on ramps that connect to NHS. Both the pavement and bridge 
measures would reflect the percentage of the system in good and poorp 
condition. The measure calculations would utilize data documented in 
the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and in the National 
Bridge Inventory (NBI).
    Section 490.315 proposes the minimum level for condition of 
pavements on the Interstate System as required by 23 U.S.C. 
150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
    Section 490.411 proposes to incorporate the minimum level for 
condition of bridges as required by 23 U.S.C 119(f)(2).

C. Costs and Benefits

    The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new 
requirements proposed in this regulatory action that represent a change 
to current practices for State DOTs and MPOs.\3\ The FHWA derived the 
costs of components by assessing the expected increase in level of 
effort from labor and additional capital needed to standardize and 
update State DOT data collection and reporting systems as well as the 
increase in level of effort from labor to establish and report targets. 
The FHWA sought opinions from pavement and bridge Subject Matter 
Experts (SME) to estimate impacts of the proposed rule. Cost estimates 
were developed based on assumptions informed by information received 
from SMEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Table 7 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed 
in labor hours, with a corresponding loaded wage rate that varied by 
the type of laborer needed to perform the activity.\4\ Where necessary, 
capital costs were included as well. Following this approach, the 10-
year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $196.4 
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost Index, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA expects that, upon implementation, the proposed rule would 
result in some significant benefits, although they are not easily 
quantifiable. Specifically, FHWA expects this proposed rule to result 
in improved pavement and bridge condition-related project, program, and 
policy choices. The proposed rule also would yield greater 
accountability for recipients of Federal funding because MAP-21-
mandated reporting would increase visibility and transparency. In 
addition, the proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway 
program on achieving balanced performance outcomes.
    The FHWA could not directly quantify the expected benefits 
discussed above due to data limitations and the amorphous nature of the 
benefits from the proposed rule. Therefore, in order to evaluate the 
benefits, FHWA used a break-even analysis as the primary approach to 
quantify benefits. For both pavements and bridges, FHWA focused its 
break-even analysis on Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) savings. The FHWA 
estimated the number of road miles of deficient pavement that would 
have to be improved (Table 8 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and 
Notices) and the number of posted bridges that would have to be avoided 
(Table 9 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices) in order for 
the benefits of the rule to justify the costs. The results of the 
break-even analysis quantified the dollar value of the benefits that 
the proposed rule must generate to outweigh the threshold value, the 
estimated cost of the proposed rule, which is $196.4 million in 
undiscounted dollars. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule would 
surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would 
outweigh the costs. The below table displays the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost and 
benefits calculated for this rule.

                                                                                  OMB A-4--Accounting Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Estimates                                                        Units
                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                                                                                                           Discount                                  Source/citation
                                             Primary                   Low                  High             Year dollar          rate        Period  covered
                                                                                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
    Annualized Monetized ($         None.....................  None...............  None...............  NA.................            7  NA...................  Not Quantified.
     millions/year).                None.....................  None...............  None...............  NA.................            3  NA...................
    Annualized Quantified.........  None.....................  None...............  None...............  NA.................            7  NA...................  Not Quantified.
                                    None.....................  None...............  None...............  NA.................            3  NA...................
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 329]]

 
    Qualitative...................  With regard to the pavement condition measures, the rule is cost-beneficial if it results in the net improvement of           Proposed Rule RIA.
                                     approximately 435 miles of pavement (i.e., from Poor condition to Good) per year, or 4,350 miles over ten years, from its
                                     current base case projection. With regard to the bridge condition measures, 0.2 year-long bridge postings would need to be
                                     avoided per year, or 2 year-long bridge postings over ten years, in order for benefits to justify costs. Because of these
                                     low thresholds, FHWA determines that the proposed rule benefits outweigh the costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Annualized Monetized ($/year).  $21,233,675..............  ...................  ...................  2012...............            7  10 Years.............  Proposed Rule RIA.
                                    $20,308,760..............  ...................  ...................  2012...............            3  10 Years.............
    Annualized Quantified.........  None.....................  None...............  None...............  2012...............            7  10 Years.............  Proposed Rule RIA.
                                    None.....................  None...............  None...............  2012...............            3  10 Years.............
    Qualitative...................
Transfers.........................  None.....................
    From/To.......................  From:....................  ...................  ...................  To:................
Effects:
    State, Local, and/or Tribal     $21,162,705..............  ...................  ...................  2012...............            7  10 Years.............  Proposed Rule RIA.
     Government.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    $20,241,409..............  ...................  ...................  2012...............            3  10 Years.............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Small Business................  Not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number    NA.................           NA  NA...................  Proposed Rule RIA.
                                     of small entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Acronym or abbreviation                                                                Term
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO.......................................  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
CFR..........................................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CMAQ.........................................  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
CRCP.........................................  Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.
DOT..........................................  U.S. Department of Transportation.
State DOT....................................  State department of transportation.
E.O..........................................  Executive Order.
FHWA.........................................  Federal Highway Administration.
FTA..........................................  Federal Transit Administration.
HPMS.........................................  Highway Performance Monitoring System.
HSIP.........................................  Highway Safety Improvement Program.
HSP..........................................  Highway Safety Plan.
IRI..........................................  International Roughness Index.
MAP-21.......................................  Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
MPO..........................................  Metropolitan Planning Organization.
NARA.........................................  National Archives and Records Administration.
NBI..........................................  National Bridge Inventory.
NBIS.........................................  National Bridge Inspection Standards.
NHPP.........................................  National Highway Performance Program.
NCHRP........................................  National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
NHS..........................................  National Highway System.
NPRM.........................................  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
OMB..........................................  Office of Management and Budget.
PCCP or Jointed PCCP.........................  Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.
PCI..........................................  Pavement Condition Index.
PRA..........................................  Paperwork Reduction Act.
PSR..........................................  Pavement Surface Rating.
RIA..........................................  Regulatory Impact Analysis.
RIN..........................................  Regulatory Identification Number.
RSL..........................................  Remaining Service Life.
Secretary....................................  Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
SHSP.........................................  Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
TMA..........................................  Transportation Management Area.
U.S.C........................................  United States Code.
VMT..........................................  Vehicle miles traveled.
VOCs.........................................  Vehicle Operating Costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 330]]

III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

    In developing the NPRMs required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c), including 
this NPRM, FHWA conducted outreach efforts to obtain technical 
information as well as information on operational and economic impacts 
from stakeholders and the public. The State DOTs, MPOs, transit 
agencies, and private/non-profit constituents across the country 
participated in the outreach efforts. A discussion of each contact or 
series of contacts influencing the agency's position may be found in 
the docket. A summary of the contacts are described below.

A. Consultation With State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations, and Other Stakeholders

    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1), DOT consulted regularly 
with affected stakeholders (State DOTs, MPOs, industry, advocacy 
organizations, etc.) to better understand the operational and economic 
impact of this proposed rule. In general, these consultations included:
     Conducting listening sessions and workshops to clarify 
stakeholder sentiment and capture diverse opinions on the 
interpretation of technical information of the potential economic and 
operational impacts of implementing 23 U.S.C. 150;
     Conducting listening sessions and workshops to better 
understand the state-of-the-practice on the economic and operational 
impacts of implementing various noteworthy practices, emerging 
technologies, and data reporting, collection, and analysis frameworks;
     Hosting webinars with targeted stakeholder audiences to 
ask for their viewpoints through a chat pod or conference call; and
     Attending meetings with non-DOT SMEs, including task 
forces, advocacy groups, private industry, non-DOT Federal employees, 
academia, etc., to discuss timelines, priorities, and the most 
effective methods for implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; and to discuss and 
collect information on the issues that need to be addressed or the 
questions that need to be answered in the NPRMs to facilitate efficient 
implementation.

B. Broader Public Consultation

    It is DOT's policy to provide for and encourage public 
participation in the rulemaking process. In addition to the public 
participation that was coordinated in conjunction with the stakeholder 
consultation discussed above, DOT provided opportunities for broader 
public participation. The DOT invited the public to provide technical 
and economic information to improve the agency's understanding of a 
subject and the potential impacts of rulemaking. This was done by 
providing an email address ([email protected]) 
feature on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site to allow the public to provide their 
comments and suggestions about the development of the performance 
measures and holding national online dialogues and listening sessions 
to ask the public to post their ideas on national performance measures, 
standards, and policies. The DOT also conducted educational outreach to 
inform the public about transportation-related performance measures and 
standards, and solicited comments on them.
    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(2)(A), FHWA will ``provide 
States, metropolitan planning organizations, and other stakeholders not 
less than 90 days to comment on any regulation proposed by the 
Secretary . . .'' During the notice and comment period, FHWA will hold 
public meetings to explain the provisions contained in these NPRMs, 
including this NPRM. All such meetings will be open to the public. 
However, all comments regarding the NPRMs must be submitted in writing 
to the rulemaking docket.

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received

    This section summarizes some of the common themes identified during 
the stakeholder outreach. These themes are organized by general 
concerns, pavement condition measure concerns, and bridge condition 
measure concerns. It is important to note that some of the stakeholder 
comments related to more than one topic. In that case, the comments 
were placed under whichever theme was most directly affected.
    General concerns:
     Stakeholders questioned how FHWA would establish a 
methodology for determining significant progress toward achieving 
performance targets, and commented on the administrative burden on 
State DOTs and MPOs associated with target establishment and reporting.
     Stakeholders asked DOT to avoid creating a ``worst first'' 
approach to selecting priorities and requested that FHWA consider using 
Asset Management principles to consider financial imbalances including 
the concept that performance measures should not drive the selection of 
projects. Stakeholders would like performance management to drive a 
system-wide, risk-based project selection approach that looks at long-
term outcomes.
     The stakeholders' key messages were simplicity, 
consistency, and flexibility.
Pavement Condition Measures
    Stakeholders suggested various analytic and empirical methods for 
performance measurement. One of the suggestions was to consider the use 
of Remaining Service Life (RSL) as a pavement performance measure. 
Stakeholders expressed that an RSL based approach to performance 
management would help agencies determine the timing and level of 
rehabilitation activities. Currently, some States DOTs have pavement 
and bridge measures that relate to RSL. Other suggested approaches for 
pavement performance measures included the Roadway Pavement Health 
Index \5\ and the Decay Ratio.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This propriety approach is intended to provide State DOTs 
the ability to relate tradeoffs between RSL, pavement management 
system data and life cycle costs in years and dollar metrics. This 
approach may not require changes to data collection or 
classification but would cost time and money to develop.
    \6\ The Decay Ratio is the ratio of deck area of bridges which 
have become newly deficient in the past year to the deck area of 
bridges which have been repaired/rehabilitated/replaced in the past 
year. More simply, Decay Ratio = (Deck Area Worse)/(Deck Area 
Improved).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most stakeholders supported the use of International Roughness 
Index (IRI) as a pavement performance measure. Some added that it 
should not be the sole pavement performance measure and that there are 
some limitations to its ability to provide agencies sufficient 
information for making investment decisions. Those stakeholders that 
support its use pointed to the long history of IRI and its use in HPMS 
protocols.
Bridge Condition Measures
    Stakeholders supported establishing bridge condition performance 
measures using the existing NBI data. However, stakeholders' opinions 
differed on the type of data to be used from the NBI and the processing 
of that data. For example, stakeholders were divided over the use of 
the ``Structurally Deficient'' classification. Some stakeholders also 
provided proprietary research information on advanced bridge condition 
assessment technologies and how these technologies may be used to 
reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges used today as a 
standard practice.
    Some stakeholders commented that simply measuring the physical

[[Page 331]]

condition of a bridge does not provide a complete picture of the 
infrastructure problems. In addition to the physical condition, 
stakeholders suggested that FHWA consider the cost of repair or 
replacement and the importance of the facility based upon how many 
vehicles it served. However, others felt that element-level bridge 
condition data, which provides granularity, is necessary to develop 
performance metrics that can help States make better informed decisions 
concerning their bridge preservation needs.
    In addition, stakeholders conveyed other concerns regarding a 
proposed bridge condition measure. They believed FHWA should provide 
State DOTs and MPOs flexibility to move toward a national bridge 
performance measure based on element-level data in the near future and 
take into account other factors such as population changes. 
Stakeholders were also concerned that expansion of the NHS to include 
all principal arterial routes in a State may impact a State DOT's 
ability to meet the minimum level for condition of bridges. Some 
stakeholders suggested that the measure established for minimum 
standard of bridge condition be consistent with definition of ``state 
of good repair'' in the ``Bridge Preservation Guidance.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Bridge Preservation Guidance (FHWA 2011) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/preservation/guide/guide.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background

    The cornerstone of MAP-21's Federal-aid highway program 
transformation is the transition to a performance and outcome-based 
program. As part of this program, recipients of Federal-aid highway 
funds would invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets 
that collectively would make progress toward national goals.
    The MAP-21 provisions that focus on the achievement of performance 
outcomes are contained in a number of sections of the law that are 
administered by different DOT agencies. Consequently, these provisions 
may require an implementation approach that includes a number of 
separate but related rulemakings, some from other modes within the DOT. 
This NPRM is focused on the implementation of some performance 
provisions related to the NHPP. The FHWA is also undertaking a 
rulemaking to implement new asset management requirements (RIN 2125-
AF57) under the NHPP (23 U.S.C.119). Interested persons should refer to 
both rulemakings. Additional rulemakings are underway to implement 
other MAP-21 performance requirements. A summary of these rulemakings, 
as they relate to this proposed rule, is provided in this section, and 
additional information regarding related implementation actions is 
available on the FHWA Web site.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Related Rulemakings

    The DOT's proposal regarding MAP-21's performance requirements 
would be presented through several rulemakings, some of which were 
referenced in the above discussions. As a summary, these rulemaking 
actions are listed below and should be referenced for a complete 
picture of performance management implementation. The summary below 
describes the main provisions that DOT plans to propose for each 
rulemaking. The DOT will seek comment on each of these rulemakings.
1. First Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN: 
2125-AF49) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NPRM was published on March 11, 2014 at 79 FR 13846.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Propose and define national measures for the HSIP
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for Federal-aid 
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of 
targets
d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
e. Discuss how FHWA intends to implement MAP-21 performance related 
provisions.
2. Second Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (This 
NPRM)
a. Propose and define national measures for the condition of NHS 
pavements and bridges
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid 
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of 
targets for NHPP
d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
e. Minimum levels for the condition of pavement on the Interstate 
System
3. Third Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN: 
2125-AF54)
a. Propose and define national measures for the remaining areas under 
23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require measures and are not discussed under the 
first and second measure rules, which includes the following: National 
Performance Measures for Performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate National Highway System; CMAQ--Traffic Congestion; CMAQ--On-
Road Mobile Source Emissions; and Freight Movement on the Interstate 
System
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid 
highway program
c. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
d. Provide a summary of all three performance measure proposed rules
4. Update to the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RINs: 
2125-AF52, 2132-AB10) \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at 79 FR 31784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Supporting national goals in the scope of the planning process
b. Coordination between States, MPOs, and public transportation 
providers in selecting FHWA and public transportation performance 
targets
c. Integration of elements in other performance-based plans into the 
metropolitan and statewide planning process
d. Discussion in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Improvement 
Programs documenting how the programs are designed to achieve targets
e. New performance reporting requirements in the Metropolitan 
transportation plan
5. Updates to the Highway Safety Improvement Program Regulations (2125-
AF56) \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The NPRM was published on March 28, 2014 at 79 FR 17464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Integration of performance measures and targets into the HSIP
b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) updates
c. Establishment of Model Inventory of Roadway Element--Fundamental 
Data Elements
d. HSIP reporting requirements
6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset Management Plan Rule (2125-AF57)
a. Contents of asset management plan
b. Certification of process to develop plan
c. Transition period to develop plan
d. Minimum standards for pavement and bridge management systems
7. Transit State of Good Repair Rule (RIN: 2132-AB07) \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The FTA published their Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) that incorporated items 7 and 8, on October 3, 
2013. This ANPRM may be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Define state of good repair and establish measures

[[Page 332]]

b. Transit asset management plan content and reporting requirements
c. Target establishment requirements for public transportation agencies 
and MPOs
8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132-AB20) \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Define transit safety standards
b. Transit safety plan content and reporting requirements
9. Highway Safety Program Grants Rule (RIN: 2127-AL30, 2127-AL29) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
published their Interim Final Rule (IFR) on January 23, 2013. This 
IFR may be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-23/pdf/2013-00682.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Highway safety plan contents, including establishment of performance 
measures, targets, and reporting requirements
b. Review and approval of highway safety plans

Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions

    The FHWA organized the many performance-related provisions within 
MAP-21 into six elements as defined below:
     National Goals--Goals or program purpose established in 
MAP-21 to focus the Federal-aid highway program on specific areas of 
performance.
     Measures--Establishment of measures by FHWA to assess 
performance and condition in order to carry out performance-based 
Federal-aid highway programs.
     Targets--Establishment of targets by recipients of 
Federal-aid highway funding for each of the measures to document 
expectations of future performance.
     Plans--Development of strategic and/or tactical plans by 
recipients of Federal funding to identify strategies and investments 
that will address performance needs.
     Reports--Development of reports by recipients of Federal 
funding that would document progress toward the achievement of targets, 
including the effectiveness of Federal-aid highway investments.
     Accountability--Requirements developed by FHWA for 
recipients of Federal funding to use to achieve or make significant 
progress toward achieving targets established for performance.
    The following provides a summary of MAP-21 provisions, as they 
relate to the six elements listed above, including a reference to other 
related rulemakings that should be considered for a more comprehensive 
view of MAP-21 performance management implementation.

A. National Goals

    The MAP-21 section 1203 establishes national goals to focus the 
Federal-aid highway program. The following national goals are codified 
at 23 U.S.C. 150(b):
     Safety--To achieve a significant reduction in traffic 
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-
State owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.
     Infrastructure condition--To maintain the highway 
infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.
     Congestion reduction--To achieve a significant reduction 
in congestion on the NHS.
     System reliability--To improve the efficiency of the 
surface transportation system.
     Freight movement and economic vitality--To improve the 
national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities 
to access national and international trade markets, and support 
regional economic development.
     Environmental sustainability--To enhance the performance 
of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural 
environment.
     Reduced project delivery delays--To reduce project costs, 
promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and 
goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in 
the project development and delivery process, including reducing 
regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.
    These national goals would be largely supported through the 
Metropolitan and Statewide planning process, which is discussed under a 
separate rulemaking (2125-AF52) to update the Metropolitan and 
Statewide Planning Regulations at 23 CFR part 450.

B. Measures

    The MAP-21 requires the establishment of performance measures, in 
consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders, that would 
do the following:
     Carry out the NHPP and assess the condition of pavements 
on the Interstate System and the NHS (excluding the Interstate System), 
the condition of bridges on the NHS, and performance of the Interstate 
System and NHS (excluding the Interstate System);
     carry out the HSIP and assess serious injuries and 
fatalities per VMT and the number of serious injuries and fatalities;
     carry out the CMAQ Program and assess traffic congestion 
and on-road mobile source emissions; and
     assess freight movement on the Interstate System.

The MAP-21 also requires the Secretary to establish the data elements 
necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a 
performance-based approach.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The FHWA would issue three NPRMs in sequence to propose the 
measures for the areas listed above. The first NPRM focused on the 
performance measures, for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP, to 
assess the number of serious injuries and fatalities and serious 
injuries and fatalities per VMT. This current NPRM focuses on the 
measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges, and a third 
NPRM will be issued to propose the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 
150(c) that require the establishment of measures. The FHWA anticipates 
issuing these three rulemakings in staggered sequence. The FHWA 
proposes to establish one common effective date for all three final 
rules for these performance measures, but we seek comment from the 
public on what would be an appropriate effective date. Additional 
information on the approach to establish performance measures for the 
Federal-aid highway program can be found on FHWA's Transportation 
Performance Management Web site.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/schedule.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum levels for the 
condition of pavements for the Interstate System necessary to carry out 
the NHPP, which is proposed in this rulemaking.\17\ In addition, MAP-21 
also requires FHWA to establish minimum standards for State DOTs to use 
in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems, 
which FHWA would propose in a separate rulemaking to establish an Asset 
Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57) for the NHS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate sections of MAP-21 require the establishment of additional 
measures to assess public transportation performance.\19\ These 
measures, which would be used to monitor the state of good repair of 
transit facilities and to establish transit safety criteria, would be 
addressed in two separate rulemakings, led by FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 333]]

    In regard to the Federal Lands Transportation Program, FHWA 
anticipates working with eligible Federal entities to establish 
performance measures.

C. Targets

    The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets 
reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program 
\20\ and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these 
measures where applicable.\21\ The first NPRM proposed the process for 
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety 
performance targets. This NPRM and the third Federal-aid highway 
measure NPRM discuss similar target establishment requirements for 
State DOTs and MPOs as they relate to the measures discussed in the 
respective proposed rules. Additionally, State DOTs and MPOs are 
required to coordinate when selecting targets for the areas specified 
under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) in order to ensure consistency in the 
establishment of targets, to the maximum extent practical.\22\ A 
separate rulemaking to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning 
Regulations (RIN 2125-AF52) at 23 CFR part 450 discusses this 
coordination requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
    \21\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
    \22\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2), 49 U.S.C. 
5303(h)(2), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, MAP-21 requires State Highway Safety Offices to establish 
targets for 10 core highway safety program measures in the HSP, which 
NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final Rule,\23\ and for 
recipients of public transportation Federal funding and MPOs to 
establish state of good repair and safety targets.\24\ Discussions on 
these target establishment requirements are not included in this NPRM. 
Rather, DOT will discuss those target establishment requirements in the 
subsequent rulemakings to implement these respective provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway 
Safety Grant Programs, Interim final rule, 78 FR 4986 (January 23, 
2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 1200).
    \24\ 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Plans

    A number of provisions within MAP-21 require State DOTs and MPOs to 
develop plans that provide strategic direction for addressing 
performance needs. For the Federal-aid highway program these provisions 
require: State DOTs to develop a NHS Asset Management Plan; \25\ State 
DOTs to update their SHSP; \26\ MPOs serving a large TMA in areas of 
non-attainment or maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan; \27\ 
MPOs to include a System Performance Report in the Metropolitan 
Transportation Plan; \28\ and State DOTs and MPOs to include a 
discussion, to the maximum extent practical, in their Transportation 
Improvement Program as to how the program would achieve the performance 
targets they have established for the area.\29\ In addition, State DOTs 
are encouraged to develop a State Freight Plan to document planned 
activities and investments with respect to freight.\30\ This rulemaking 
does not discuss any requirements to develop or use plans. Rather, a 
discussion on the development and use of these plans would be included 
in the respective rulemakings to implement these provisions. More 
information on the required plans and the actions to implement the 
statutory provisions related to plans can be found on FHWA's MAP-21 Web 
site.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
    \26\ 23 U.S.C. 148(d).
    \27\ 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
    \28\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).
    \29\ 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).
    \30\ MAP-21 Section 1118.
    \31\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Reports

    The MAP-21 section 1203 requires State DOTs to submit biennial 
reports to FHWA on the condition and performance of the NHS, the 
effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State DOT's 
asset management plan for the NHS, progress in achieving targets, and 
ways in which the State DOT is addressing congestion at freight 
bottlenecks.\32\ The FHWA proposed in the first NPRM that safety 
progress be reported by State DOTs through the HSIP annual report and 
not in the biennial report required under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). This NPRM, 
under subpart A, discusses the 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting 
requirement. The 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting requirement would 
apply to all of the non-safety measures for the Federal-aid highway 
program (i.e., the measures proposed in this NPRM and in the third 
Performance Measures NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additional progress reporting requirements are required under the 
CMAQ Program, Metropolitan transportation planning, elements of the 
Public Transportation Act of 2012, and the Motor Vehicle and Highway 
Safety Improvement Act of 2012. Detailed discussions on these reporting 
requirements are not included in this NPRM. Also, State DOTs should 
include a system performance report in their statewide transportation 
plan. These reporting provisions are discussed in separate rulemakings 
and guidance and are not discussed in this rulemaking.

F. Accountability

    Two provisions within MAP-21, specifically 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) 
under the NHPP and 23 U.S.C. 148(i) under the HSIP, require the State 
DOT to undertake actions if significant progress is not made toward the 
achievement of State DOT targets established for these respective 
programs. For the NHPP, if a State DOT does not achieve or make 
significant progress toward the achievement of its NHS performance 
targets for two consecutive biennial reports, then the State DOT must 
document in its next report the actions it would take to achieve the 
targets.\33\ The proposed implementation of this provision is covered 
in subpart A of this NPRM. For the HSIP, if a State DOT does not 
achieve or make significant progress toward the achievement of its HSIP 
safety targets, then the State DOT must dedicate a specified amount of 
obligation limitation to safety projects and prepare an annual 
implementation plan.\34\ The first performance measures NPRM discussed 
this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
    \34\ 23 U.S.C. 148(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, MAP-21 requires that each State DOT maintain a minimum 
condition level for Interstate System pavement and NHS bridge 
conditions. If a State DOT falls below either standard, then the State 
DOT must spend a specified portion of its funds for that purpose until 
the minimum standard is exceeded.\35\ This NPRM discusses this 
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact that 
State DOTs can have on performance outcomes within the State and that 
State DOTs need to consider this uncertainty in their establishment of 
targets. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to consult with relevant 
entities (e.g., MPOs, local transportation agencies, Federal Land 
Management Agencies, tribal governments) as State DOTs establish 
targets, so they can better identify and consider factors outside of 
their direct control that could impact future condition/performance.
    Further, MAP-21 includes special safety rules to require each State 
DOT to maintain or improve safety performance on high risk rural roads 
and for older drivers and pedestrians.\36\ If the State

[[Page 334]]

DOT does not meet these special rules, which contain minimum 
performance standards, then it must dedicate a portion of HSIP funding 
(in the case of the high risk rural road special rule) or document in 
their SHSP actions they intend to take to improve performance (in the 
case of the older driver special rule). Guidance on how FHWA would 
administer these two special rules is provided on the FHWA MAP-21 Web 
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements
    The FHWA will implement the performance requirements within section 
1203 of MAP-21 in a manner that results in a transformation of the 
Federal-aid highway program so that the program focuses on national 
goals, provides for a greater level of accountability and transparency, 
and provides a means for the most efficient investment of Federal 
transportation funds. The FHWA plans to implement these new 
requirements in a manner that will provide Federal-aid highway fund 
recipients the greatest opportunity to fully embrace a performance-
based approach to transportation investment decisionmaking that does 
not hinder performance improvement. In this regard, FHWA carefully 
considered the following principles in the development of proposed 
regulations for national performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c):
     Provide for a National Focus--focus the performance 
requirements on outcomes that can be reported at a national level.
     Minimize the Number of Measures--identify only the most 
necessary measures that would be required for target establishment and 
progress reporting. Limit the number of measures to one or no more than 
two per area specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
     Ensure for Consistency--provide a sufficient level of 
consistency, nationally, in the establishment of measures, the process 
to establish targets and report expectations, and the approach to 
assess progress so that transportation performance can be presented in 
a credible manner at a national level.
     Phase in Requirements--allow for sufficient time to comply 
with new requirements and consider approaches to phase in new 
approaches to measuring, target establishment, and reporting 
performance.
     Increase Accountability and Transparency--consider an 
approach that would provide the public and decision makers a better 
understanding of Federal transportation investment returns and needs.
     Consider Risk--recognize that risks in the target 
establishment process are inherent and that many factors, outside the 
control of those that would be required to establish targets, can 
impact performance.
     Understand that Priorities Differ--recognize that targets 
need to be established across a wide range of performance areas and 
that performance trade-offs would need to be made to establish 
priorities, which would be influenced by local and regional needs.
     Recognize Fiscal Constraints--provide for an approach that 
encourages the optimal investment of Federal funds to maximize 
performance but recognize that, when operating with scarce resources, 
performance cannot always be improved.
     Provide for Flexibility--recognize that the MAP-21 
requirements are the first steps that will transform the Federal-aid 
highway program to a performance-based program and that State DOTs, 
MPOs, and other stakeholders would be learning a great deal as 
implementation occurs.
    The FHWA considered these principles in this NPRM and encourages 
comments on the extent to which this approach to performance measures, 
set forth in this NPRM, supports the principles discussed above.
Federal Technical Assistance
    The FHWA is committed to providing stewardship to State DOTs and 
MPOs assisting them as they take steps to manage and improve the 
performance of the highway system. As a Federal agency, FHWA is in a 
unique position to utilize resources at a national level to capture and 
share strategies that can improve performance. The FHWA is prepared to 
dedicate resources at the national level to provide on-site assistance, 
technical tools and guidance to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them in 
making more effective investment decisions. It is FHWA's intent to be 
engaged at a local and national level to provide resources and 
assistance from the onset to identify opportunities to improve 
performance and to increase the chances for full State DOT and MPO 
compliance of new performance related regulations. The FHWA technical 
assistance will include activities such as conducting national research 
studies, developing analytical modeling tools, identifying and 
promoting best practices, preparing guidance materials, and developing 
data quality assurance tools. The FHWA encourages comments on how it 
can help maximize opportunities for successful implementation.

V. Performance Management Measure Analysis

    In consultation with State DOTs, MPOs and other stakeholders, FHWA 
selected measures for this proposed rule considered to be the best 
alternatives to carry out the pavement and bridge condition related 
provisions of the NHPP and to use to assess pavement and bridge 
condition. The FHWA evaluated the selected measures, using a common 
methodology, to identify gaps that could impact successful 
implementation of proposed performance measures. This section discusses 
the basis for selecting the proposed performance measures and FHWA's 
identification of potential implementation gaps.

A. Selection of National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP: 
Pavement and Bridge

    The FHWA considered views from the following sources when 
developing pavement and bridge measures to carry out the NHPP:
     Knowledge of technical experts within DOT on the current 
state of practice to monitor highway pavement and bridge condition;
     Information provided by external stakeholders received 
directly or captured as part of organized stakeholder listening 
sessions;
     Information provided by external stakeholders received 
indirectly through informal contact such as telephone calls, email or 
letters; and
     Measures that have been recommended and documented in 
nationally recognized reports such as the assessment of measurement 
readiness documented in the final report for NCHRP 20-24(37)G, 
``Technical Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance 
Measurements.''
Pavement Condition Measure
    Since 2010, through HPMS, State DOTs have submitted rutting, 
Cracking_Percent, International Roughness Index (IRI), and faulting 
data metrics.\37\ The FHWA's ``Conditions and Performance Report'' and 
``Highway Statistics Series'' have used pavement roughness, with the 
IRI as a metric, as the basis for its pavement conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Cracking_Percent refers to the data metric in HPMS and is 
used as one of the metrics for determining the condition of 
pavements for the performance measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on FHWA's research, most State DOTs use a common group of 
pavement metrics (e.g., pavement

[[Page 335]]

roughness, percentage of pavement that is rutted, percentage of 
pavement that is cracked, and the amount of misalignment between 
concrete pavement slabs), to report on and manage the condition of 
pavements in their State. There is not currently a nationally accepted 
method for assessing pavement condition using multiple pavement 
condition metrics (e.g., IRI, rutting, Cracking_Percent, faulting) that 
most State DOTs use. A survey conducted as part of the 2009 National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401 study \38\ 
revealed that 98 percent of State DOTs collect distress data (e.g., 
faulting, cracking) and 95 percent collect roughness data to monitor 
network level pavement conditions. Similarly, an assessment of pavement 
management practices conducted by FHWA indicated that, for the NHS, all 
State DOTs monitor roughness and rutting, 94 percent monitor 
Cracking_Percent, 95 percent monitor faulting (with concrete surfaced 
pavements), and 31 percent monitor structural capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Flintsch G., McGhee K., NCHRP Synthesis 401, ``Quality 
Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection'', 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA selected these metrics for calculation of the performance 
measures to assess pavement conditions in this rulemaking. In support 
of the selection of these metrics, FHWA evaluated their use in highway 
pavement investment decisions by State DOTs. The Texas Transportation 
Institute conducted a study, called the ``Pavement Score Synthesis.'' 
The synthesis study indicated that nearly all State DOTs use a 
combination of pavement condition attributes and a variety of methods 
and procedures to rate the condition of pavements. Most of these 
methods and procedures included some aspect of pavement roughness and 
at least one other pavement condition metric. A recently completed 
NCHRP project \39\ included a detailed review of data collected and 
reported by State DOTs on pavement condition in their State pavement 
management system as compared to the data they report in the HPMS. This 
project included a national survey that was provided to all State DOTs 
and a detailed assessment using data collected and reported from eight 
State DOTs. The project's report indicated that assessments of pavement 
condition using State DOT methods of qualifying good, fair, and poor 
conditions were noticeably different from an approach based solely on 
IRI conditions as reported in the HPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Zimmerman, K., Smadi, O. NCHRP 20-24(82), ``Increasing 
Consistency in HPMS Pavement Data,'' 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing its proposed measure, FHWA considered the use of 
existing methods such as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) developed 
by the Army Corps of Engineers, the RSL concept using prediction models 
developed for the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and 
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, under NCHRP 1-37A \40\, and State 
DOT-developed methods to calculate a pavement condition rating. The 
FHWA found that no single existing method was used predominantly enough 
to be considered as a national standard. In addition, existing methods, 
such as the PCI, were too challenging to implement nationally due to 
the burden and time associated with introducing pavement condition 
metrics that are not currently reported at a national level through a 
system like HPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ ``The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and 
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,'' NCHRP 1-37A, 2004, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_toc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA has been working for the past several years in 
consultation with State DOTs to evaluate approaches that could more 
completely assess pavement condition at a national level. Based on 
these efforts, FHWA proposes to establish measures to assess pavement 
condition that meet the following criteria:
     Consider more than roughness.
     Utilize pavement condition attributes currently reported 
at a national level.
     Utilize pavement condition attributes where data 
collection and reporting standards exist today.
     Result in an assessment approach that is consistent with 
typical conceptual approaches used today by State DOTs to assess 
condition.
     Consider an approach that can be implemented so that State 
DOTs can establish targets within a 12-month time period after FHWA 
establishes the performance measures without introducing a considerable 
burden on State DOTs.
    The FHWA proposes in this NPRM a measure for State DOTs to use to 
assess pavement condition that satisfies the criteria above and is 
based on data within the HPMS, including: IRI, rutting for asphalt 
surfaced pavements, faulting for jointed concrete surfaced pavements, 
and Cracking_Percent. The FHWA proposes pavement condition measures 
that would reflect the predominant condition represented by each of 
these HPMS data elements.
    The four proposed measures to assess pavement condition are: (1) 
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition; (2) 
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition; (3) 
Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in 
Good condition; and (4) a Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding 
the Interstate System) in Poor condition.
    The FHWA is proposing measures to represent both the percentage of 
Good pavements and the percentage of Poor pavements that would support 
sound asset management practices. The FHWA intends to implement a 
condition measurement approach that will recognize the need to both 
preserve Good and Fair conditions and improve Poor conditions. The FHWA 
believes that a measurement approach that focused only on increasing 
Good conditions or only on reducing Poor conditions may result in 
practices that would not optimize the benefits of infrastructure 
investments. This same approach is proposed for the bridge condition 
measures as discussed in the next section.
Bridge Condition Measure
    The FHWA, using data from the NBI, monitors bridge conditions in 
the United States. This database was established in 1972 and State DOTs 
have been required to submit annual reports to FHWA since 1978. The NBI 
is a highly consistent set of national data for evaluating the 
condition and performance of bridges. The National Bridge Inspection 
Standards (NBIS) in 23 CFR part 650 contribute to this consistency. The 
NBIS established the national standards for the proper and uniform 
inspection and evaluation of highway bridges. The NBIS include the 
specified methods by which inspections are to be carried out, 
qualifications for those charged with carrying out inspections, and 
certain bridge data that is to be collected and retained for collection 
by FHWA. For these reasons, FHWA considers the NBI and its data the 
definitive source for national bridge information and the most 
appropriate metric for bridge condition measures.
    The ``Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure 
Health Pilot Study Report'' \41\ evaluated different methods to assign 
bridge condition using NBI data as a metric for defining a Good, Fair, 
or Poor classification. For this study, the NBI

[[Page 336]]

database was selected as the logical data source because of the 
consistency of its representation of over 40 years of collected data, 
and its use by nearly every State DOT as the current basis for their 
bridge decisionmaking. The study discussed and evaluated four different 
weighted average methods and one minimum condition rating method. The 
four weighted average methods consisted of calculating a measure of 
structural adequacy based on a weighted average of deck, 
superstructure, and sub-structure condition ratings of a bridge. The 
minimum condition rating method calculated a measure of structural 
adequacy based on the lowest condition rating of deck, superstructure, 
and sub-structure of a bridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Guerre, et al., FHWA-HIF-12-049, ``Improving FHWA's Ability 
to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report,'' 2012 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/hif12049.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Findings of the study concluded that for the Interstate System:
     Percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor 
were consistent for the four different weighted average methods and the 
minimum condition rating method with little variation;
     the minimum condition rating method resulted in the 
highest percentage of bridges in Poor condition;
     percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor 
based on the four weighted average methods were not sensitive to the 
weights; and
     bridge deck conditions alone are typically not the driving 
factor in the Good, Fair, or Poor classifications.
    The FHWA conducted an additional assessment of the different 
methods and observed that the magnitude in differences between 
condition ratings for individual NBI items was somewhat nullified when 
a final average or weighted average method was employed. The 
``Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health 
Pilot Study Report'' made a similar observation. This masking or 
obscuring of possible poor bridge conditions is a major concern with 
these methods. Although these methods could be further refined to 
possibly resolve this problem, the development, subjectivity, and 
complexity of such methods makes them less desirable than the simple 
minimum condition rating method, particularly when analyses indicate 
that a refined weighted method would result in the same general 
classification as the minimum condition rating method.
    The FHWA proposes to establish two bridge performance measures 
using a classification system of Good, Fair, and Poor. These are based 
on an assessment of bridge condition data from the NBI. The measures 
would reflect the lowest component condition rating for the bridge.\42\ 
The FHWA further proposes to weight this classification by the 
respective deck area of the bridge and express condition totals as a 
percentage of the total bridge deck area in a State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ While FHWA proposes bridge condition measures that would 
reflect the lowest condition level represented by different bridge 
elements, the proposed pavement condition measures would reflect the 
predominant condition represented by certain HPMS data elements. The 
FHWA is proposing these differing approaches for pavement and 
bridges primarily due to the need to minimize safety risks 
associated with bridges. Additional information is provided in the 
Section-by-Section discussion to describe the differences in the 
methods to determine pavement and bridge conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two proposed performance measures for assessing bridge 
condition are: (1) Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Good 
Condition; and (2) Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor 
Condition. These proposed performance measures are based on the 
assessment of condition ratings for the following NBI Items: 58--Deck, 
59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, and 62--Culverts.

B. Assessment of Selected National Performance Management Measures for 
the NHPP: Pavement and Bridge

    The FHWA used a common methodology of 12 criteria to assess the 
appropriateness of the measure for national use and the readiness to 
implement the performance measure accurately and reliably. As a result 
of its assessment, FHWA assigned one of the following three ratings for 
each criterion.

 Green--Criterion is fully met for the candidate measure
 Yellow--Criterion is partially met for the candidate measure 
and work is underway to fully meet the criterion
 Red--Criterion is not fully met or no work is underway or 
planned that would allow the criterion to be met

    The FHWA used the results of this assessment to identify gaps that 
FHWA could address through this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness 
of the measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess pavement and 
bridge conditions. The rulemaking docket contains a description of the 
methodology used for this assessment.
Pavement Condition Performance Management Measures
    The following four pavement performance measures for assessing 
condition proposed by FHWA are calculated from data from the HPMS: (1) 
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition; (2) 
Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition; (3) 
Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in 
Good condition; and (4) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding 
the Interstate System) in Poor condition. The assessment process 
described earlier in this section evaluates these pavement performance 
measures for assessing conditions based on existing state-of-the-
practice. Table 1 provides a summary of this assessment.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 337]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.001

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    The performance measures identified in this NPRM are considered to 
be ready for use when all of the criteria are rated Green. The 
remaining measures require additional analysis before they can be used 
on a regular basis for measuring the performance of the transportation 
system. The proposal outlined in this NPRM attempts to address some of 
the gaps that exist today for the yellow and red criteria so that, as a 
result of the implementation of these new requirements, the measures 
would result in an improved assessment rating and thereby better 
support national programs. The FHWA proposal addresses the gaps that 
exist today primarily through improvement of data collection 
techniques, requiring the use of established AASHTO Standards, 
establishing a standard method of calculation, and requiring data 
quality management programs in every State DOT. When establishing the 
proposed pavement condition measures, FHWA considered the following 
with respect to the criteria above:
     Criterion A3--consider data standards that allow for new 
data

[[Page 338]]

collection methods as technologies improve. Consider an approach that 
allows for pavement metrics to change in the future as data standards 
are updated and improved.
     Criterion A4--recognize that the individual pavement 
metrics are not typically used to drive decisionmaking. Consider how 
the four metrics can be used collectively to develop a pavement measure 
that is more closely tied to decisionmaking.
     Criterion A6--consider changes to the current requirements 
to collect, store, and report data to the HPMS to support the proposed 
pavement condition measure.
     Criterion B1--recognize the time lag of data available in 
national data sources versus the availability of data in State-
maintained sources in requirements associated with proposed pavement 
measures, target establishment, and evaluation of progress.
     Criteria B2 and B4--consider an approach that utilizes 
data collection standards and data reporting requirements that would 
improve consistency and accuracy in application across the country and 
recognize that these improvements can take time to implement. Recognize 
that State DOTs have been collecting and reporting pavement condition 
metrics for many years and that the standards, frequency, and formats 
have changed during this time.
     Criterion B3--consider an approach that improves the 
completeness of data coverage in the HPMS and recognize that State data 
submissions often have not represented the full extent of the NHS.
     Criterion B6--recognize the essential need for a national 
data source for pavement condition and that implementing minor 
adjustments to existing State DOT methodologies would facilitate the 
creation of such a national data source at a relatively low cost. 
Furthermore, many States already have technology, such as Geographic 
information Systems or Enterprise Resource Systems that can integrate 
data from various sources to support decisionmaking on a larger scale 
to aid with asset management and performance reporting programs.
Bridge Condition Performance Management Measures
    The FHWA proposes two performance measures for assessing bridge 
condition: (1) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS Bridges Classified as in 
Good condition; and (2) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS Bridges 
Classified as in Poor condition. This data includes the following NBI 
items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, and 62--
Culverts. These bridge performance measures for assessing condition 
attributes were evaluated using the, existing state-of-the-practice, 
assessment process described in Section A.
    All of the criteria, when applied to the proposed bridge 
performance measures, can be fully met largely because FHWA and 
stakeholders recognize that the NBI is, and has been for decades, the 
most consistent and comprehensive set of national data for evaluating 
the condition of bridges. Because the NBIS contains a consistent set of 
required standards for State DOTs to use for the proper inspection and 
evaluation of bridges for safety and serviceability, its use results in 
consistent and accurate data that goes into the NBI. Nearly every State 
DOT uses the NBI in some form as the basis for their current bridge 
decisionmaking. The calculation of the performance measures for 
assessing bridge condition provides flexibility to accommodate future 
changes such as the use of element level bridge data. In addition, the 
proposed measures are consistent with the feedback that FHWA has 
received from stakeholders. Therefore, FHWA considers the proposed 
bridge performance measures ready for use.
    In this NPRM, FHWA is proposing the establishment of measures to 
assess pavement and bridge conditions. These measures would be used by 
State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets, develop plans, and report on 
progress. As discussed in the background of this proposal, FHWA is 
conducting a related rulemaking to establish requirements for the 
development of Asset Management Plans; this NPRM includes proposed 
minimum standards for State DOTs to use to develop and operate pavement 
and bridge management systems (RIN 2125-AF56). State DOTs use these 
systems to develop investment strategies for managing the conditions of 
their pavement and bridge networks. Further, FHWA has issued a proposed 
rule to update 23 CFR 450 to integrate performance in the scope of the 
metropolitan and statewide planning process (RIN 2125-AF52, 2132-AB10). 
Collectively, these three rulemakings discuss how the proposed measures 
would be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess and manage pavement and 
bridge conditions.
    Transportation decision makers consider a range of factors that 
ultimately influence project level investments decisions and typically 
reflect the transportation priorities for a local area or region. For 
example, a State DOT may, as a priority, focus their decisionmaking on 
investments that first address the sections of highways with higher 
traffic volumes or fatalities. With the exception of the minimum 
condition requirements for Interstate pavements and NHS bridges, FHWA 
is not proposing an implementation approach in this NPRM that would 
suggest how a State DOT or MPO would prioritize investment decisions. 
State DOTs and MPOs consider their priorities through the planning 
process.
    The requirement of reporting and assessing targets would not 
necessarily dictate how a State DOT or MPO should prioritize their 
decision-making in establishing the targets required by 23 U.S.C. 
150(d). A State DOT or MPO may consider a number of factors, such as 
funding availability and local transportation priorities, that could 
impact the targets they ultimately establish for pavement and bridge 
system conditions. For this reason, as stated in the discussion 
sections for Sec. Sec.  490.105 and 490.109, the State DOT or MPO may 
elect to establish targets that represent a decline in pavement or 
bridge system conditions. Once established, the State DOT and MPO would 
use their targets to program investments by selecting sections of 
highway that would be treated to preserve or improve condition. The 
proposed regulation allows a State DOT or MPO to make decisions on the 
location of project investments. The FHWA encourages State DOTs and 
MPOs to select projects that will maximize the investment returns in 
improving system conditions.
    The measures that are being proposed in this rulemaking are 
intended to summarize the condition based on the physical attributes of 
the pavement and bridge facility. Consequently, under this proposal a 
pavement or bridge would be rated in the same condition (Good, Fair, or 
Poor) regardless of the facility's location; functional class; level of 
use; environment; or impact the facility may have on other aspects of 
transportation performance, such as safety and traffic congestion. The 
FHWA is seeking comment from the public on whether the measures should 
reflect additional factors that could influence decision making, such 
as facility location, functional class, level of use, environment, or 
impact it may have on other aspects of transportation performance.

[[Page 339]]

VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and 
Proposed National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP: 
Pavement and Bridge

    This Section-by-Section discusses how the proposed regulations 
address MAP-21's charge to establish national performance measures for 
State DOTs and MPOs to assess the condition of pavements and bridges to 
carry out the NHPP. The common aspects of the proposed rulemaking, 
related to reporting, significant progress determination, and target 
development, are discussed in subpart A: General Information. For the 
bridge and pavement performance measures, the proposed rule is 
separated by asset.\43\ Subpart C addresses the Pavement performance 
measures and subpart D addresses the Bridge performance measures. 
Subparts C and D provide the requirements for the Pavement and Bridge 
performance measures, including methodologies for data collection, data 
requirements, a calculation process for evaluating condition, 
establishment or identification of minimal level of condition, and 
penalties for not maintaining condition. The Section-by-Section 
discussion also addresses procedural discrepancies in current data 
collection and reporting and attempts to update them utilizing the 
latest research and state-of-the-practice experience to provide 
consistent national performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Subpart B, addressing the HSIP-related performance 
management measures, was proposed in the first Federal-aid Highway 
Performance Management Measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Section-by-Section Discussion for the Subpart A: General 
Information, Target establishment, reporting, and NHPP Significant 
Progress Determination

Discussion of Sec.  490.101 General Definitions
    The FHWA proposes a section of general definitions. The first NPRM 
regarding the establishment of measures for carrying out the HSIP 
included several definitions (HPMS, measure, metric, non-urbanized area 
and target) that are repeated in this NPRM to provide clarity in the 
implementation of the proposed performance measures.
    The FHWA proposes to define ``Full Extent'' to delineate data 
collection methods that utilize a sampling approach versus those that 
use a continuous form of data collection.
    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``Highway Performance 
Monitoring System (HPMS)'' because it will be one of the data sources 
used in establishing a measure and establishing a target. The HPMS is 
an FHWA maintained, national level highway information system that 
includes State DOT-submitted data on the extent, condition, 
performance, use and operating characteristics of the Nation's 
highways. The HPMS database was jointly developed and implemented by 
FHWA and State DOTs beginning in 1974 and it is a continuous data 
collection system serving as the primary source of information for the 
Federal government about the Nation's highway system. Additionally, the 
data in the HPMS is used for the analysis of highway system condition, 
performance, and investment needs that make up the biennial Condition 
and Performance Reports to Congress. These Reports are used by the 
Congress in establishing both authorization and appropriation 
legislation, activities that ultimately determine the scope and size of 
the Federal-aid highway program, and determine the level of Federal 
highway taxation. Increasingly, State DOTs, as well as the MPOs, have 
utilized the HPMS as they have addressed a wide variety of concerns 
about their highway systems.\44\ Numerous State DOTs and the MPOs use 
HPMS data and its analytical capabilities for supporting their 
condition/performance assessment, investment requirement analysis, 
strategic and state planning efforts, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Highway Performance Monitoring System, FHWA Office of 
Policy Information. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/nahpms.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to define ``mainline highway'' to limit the 
extent of the highway system to be included in the scope of the 
proposed pavement performance measures. The proposed definition for 
mainline highway includes the primary traveled portion of the roadway 
and excludes ramps, climbing lanes, turn lanes, auxiliary lanes, 
shoulders, and non-normally traveled pavement surfaces.
    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``measure'' because 
establishing measures is a critical element of an overall performance 
management approach and it is important to have a common definition 
that the FHWA can use throughout the Part. To have a consistent 
definition for ``measure,'' the FHWA proposes to make a distinction 
between ``measure'' and ``metric.'' Hence, the FHWA proposes to define 
``metric'' as a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition and 
to define ``measure'' as an expression based on a metric that is used 
to establish targets and to assess progress toward achieving the 
established targets.
    The FHWA proposes a definition for ``National Bridge Inventory 
(NBI)'' because it is the data system that would be used to establish 
the measure for assessing the condition of the bridges on the NHS and 
the targets for the measure, and the assessment of progress toward 
achieving the established targets. This definition is based on the 
description of an inventory as required by 23 U.S.C. 144(b)(1) and 23 
U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D).
    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``non-urbanized 
areas'' to provide clarity in the implementation of the provision in 23 
U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that allows the State DOTs the option of selecting 
different targets for ``urbanized and rural areas.'' As written, the 
statute is silent regarding the small urban areas that fall between 
``rural'' and ``urbanized'' areas. Instead of only giving the State 
DOTs the option of establishing targets for ``rural'' and ``urbanized'' 
areas, FHWA proposes to define ``non-urbanized'' areas to include both 
``rural'' areas and the small urban areas that are larger than 
``rural'' areas but do not meet the criteria of an ``urbanized area.'' 
This would then allow State DOTs to establish different targets for 
urbanized and non-urbanized areas. For target-establishment purposes, 
the FHWA believes that these small urban areas are best treated with 
the ``rural'' areas, as non-urbanized areas, because both of these 
areas do not have the same complexities that come with having the 
population and density of urbanized areas and are generally more rural 
in characteristic. In addition, neither of these areas are treated as 
MPOs in the transportation planning process or given the authority 
under MAP-21 to establish their own targets.
    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``Performance 
period'' to establish a definitive period of time during which 
condition/performance would be measured, evaluated, and reported. The 
frequency of measurement and target establishment for the measures 
proposed to implement 23 U.S.C. 150 is not directly or indirectly 
defined in statute. The FHWA proposes a consistent time period of 4 
calendar years that would be used to assess non-safety condition/
performance. This time period aligns with the timing of the biennial 
performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) and is 
consistent with a typical planning cycle for most State DOTs and MPOs 
(e.g., State and MPO transportation improvement programs are required 
to cover a 4-year period; metropolitan plans are also required to be 
updated every 4 or 5 years). The

[[Page 340]]

proposed calendar year basis is consistent with data reporting 
requirements currently in place to report pavement and bridge 
conditions, which are also done on a calendar year basis.
    The FHWA proposes a definition for ``Performance period'' that 
would cover a 4-year period beginning on January 1 of the calendar year 
in which targets are due to FHWA, as discussed in Sec.  490.105. Within 
a performance period, condition/performance would be measured and 
evaluated to: (1) Assess condition/performance with respect to baseline 
condition/performance; and (2) track progress toward the achievement of 
the target that represents the intended condition/performance level at 
the midpoint and at the end of that time period. The term ``Performance 
period'' applies to all proposed measures in this Part, except the 
proposed measures for the HSIP provided for in Sec.  490.209 where FHWA 
proposed a 1 calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target 
establishment and reporting.
    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``target'' to 
indicate how measures will be used for target establishment by State 
DOTs and MPOs to assess performance or condition.
Discussion of Sec.  490.103 Data Requirements
    The FHWA is proposing in Sec.  490.103 data requirements that apply 
to more than one subpart in part 490. Additional proposed data 
requirements that are unique to each subpart are included and discussed 
in their respective subpart.
    In this section, FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would submit 
urbanized area boundaries in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual. The 
boundaries of urbanized areas would be as identified through the most 
recent U.S. Decennial Census unless FHWA approves adjustments to the 
urbanized area, as submitted by State DOTs and allowed for under 23 
U.S.C. 101(a)(34). These boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the 
year the Baseline Performance Report is due, and are applicable to the 
entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved 
adjustments to the urbanized area boundary during the performance 
period. The FHWA proposes that the State DOT submitted boundary 
information would be the authoritative data source for the target scope 
for the additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas (Sec.  
490.105(e)(3)), progress reporting (Sec.  490.107(b)), and IRI rating 
(Sec.  490.313(b)(1)) for the measures identified in Sec.  
490.105(c)(1)-(3). As discussed in Sec.  490.105(d)(3), any changes in 
urbanized area boundaries during a performance period would not be 
accounted for until the following performance period. The FHWA-approved 
urbanized area data available in HPMS on June 15th (HPMS due date) 
prior to the due date of the Baseline Performance Report is to be used 
for this purpose. For example, State DOTs shall submit their first 
Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1, 2016. The FHWA 
approved urbanized area data available in HPMS on June 16, 2016 is to 
be used.
    Section 490.103(c) is reserved.
    In Sec.  490.103(d), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would continue 
to submit NHS limit data in accordance with HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA 
proposed that the State DOT submitted NHS information would be the 
authoritative data source for determining measure applicability (Sec.  
490.105(c)), target scope (Sec.  490.105(d)), progress reporting (Sec.  
490.107(b)), and determining significant progress (Sec.  490.109(d)) 
for the measures identified in Sec.  490.105(c)(1)-(3). As discussed in 
Sec.  490.105(e)(3)(i), the NHS limits dataset referenced in the 
Baseline Performance Report are to be applied to the entire performance 
period, regardless of changes to the NHS approved and submitted to HPMS 
during the performance period.
Discussion of Sec.  490.105 Establishment of Performance Targets
    The declared policy under 23 U.S.C. 150(a) transforms the Federal-
aid highway program and encourages the most efficient investment of 
Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation 
goals, increasing accountability and transparency in the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improving investment decisionmaking. To this end, 
FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets that would 
support the national transportation goals while improving investment 
decision-making processes.
    A number of considerations were raised during the performance 
management stakeholder outreach sessions regarding target 
establishment, such as: Providing flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs, 
coordinating through the planning process, allowing for appropriate 
time for target achievement, and allowing State DOTs and MPOs to 
incorporate risks. Using these considerations, FHWA created a set of 
principles to develop an approach to implement the target establishment 
requirements in MAP-21. These principles aimed to develop an approach 
that:
     Provides for a new focus for the Federal-aid program on 
the MAP-21 national goals under 23 U.S.C. 150(b);
     improves investment decisionmaking;
     considers the need for local performance trade-off 
decisionmaking;
     provides for flexibility in the establishment of targets;
     allows for an aggregated view of anticipated condition/
performance; and
     considers budget constraints.
    In Sec.  490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that would 
be followed by State DOTs and MPOs in the establishment of targets for 
all measures identified in Sec.  490.105(c), which include the proposed 
measures in both this performance management NPRM and the third 
performance management NPRM. These requirements are being proposed to 
implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target 
establishment provisions in a manner that provides for the consistency 
necessary to evaluate and report progress at a State, MPO, and national 
level, while also providing a degree of flexibility for State DOTs and 
MPOs.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(a) for State DOTs and MPOs to 
establish quantifiable targets for each performance measure identified 
in Sec.  490.105(c). In Sec.  490.105(b), the performance targets for 
carrying out the HSIP would be established in accordance with Sec.  
490.209 of the first performance management NPRM.
    In Sec.  490.105(d), FHWA proposes that State DOTs establish 
statewide targets that represent performance outcomes of the 
transportation network within the respective State boundary, and that 
MPOs establish targets that represent performance outcomes of the 
transportation network within their respective metropolitan planning 
area. State DOTs and, if applicable, MPOs are encouraged to coordinate 
their target-establishment with neighboring states and MPOs to the 
extent practicable. The FHWA further proposes in Sec.  490.105(d) that 
State DOTs and MPOs establish targets that represent performance 
outcomes of the entire transportation network required for proposed 
measures regardless of ownership, including NHS bridges that cross a 
State border.
    The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact the 
State DOT and the MPO can have on the performance outcomes within the 
State and the metropolitan planning area, respectively, and recognizes 
that the State DOT and the MPO need to consider this uncertainty when

[[Page 341]]

establishing targets. For example, some Federal and tribal lands 
contain roads and bridges on the NHS that State DOTs would need to 
consider (as appropriate) when establishing targets. The FHWA 
anticipates that State DOTs and MPOs would need to consult with 
relevant entities (e.g., relevant MPOs, State DOTs, local 
transportation agencies, Federal Land Management Agencies, tribal 
governments) as they establish targets to better identify and consider 
factors outside of their direct control that could impact future 
condition/performance.
    The FHWA also recognizes that the limits of the NHS could change 
between the time of target establishment and the time of progress 
evaluation and reporting for the targets for measures specified in 
sections Sec.  490.105(c)(1) through (3). State DOTs may request 
modifications to the NHS, which could result in additions, deletions or 
relocations. In one instance with MAP-21, segments were added to the 
NHS. Such changes may alter the measures reported, which could then 
impact how an established target relates to actual measured 
performance. For example, if NHS limits are changed after a State DOT 
establishes the target, actual measured performance of the 
transportation network within the changed NHS limits would represent a 
different set of highways as compared to what was originally used to 
establish the target. This difference could impact a State DOT's 
ability to make significant progress toward achieving targets. Thus, 
for establishing targets for NHS, FHWA believes that it will be 
important for the State DOT to ensure that the data used to establish 
the targets is accessible, and the information about the data is 
properly documented. Consequently, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would 
need to describe the extent of the NHS used for target establishment. 
The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs declare and describe their 
urbanized area boundaries. This information would be included, along 
with reporting targets, in the Baseline Performance Period Report 
described in Sec.  490.107(b)(1). These NHS limits and urbanized area 
boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the year the Baseline 
Performance Report is due, and are applicable to the entire performance 
period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved adjustments to the 
NHS limits during the performance period. In Sec.  490.105(d)(3), FHWA 
proposes that any changes in NHS limits or urbanized area boundaries 
during a performance period would not be accounted for until the 
following performance period.
    In Sec.  490.105(e), FHWA proposes the State DOT requirements for 
the establishment of targets for all measures identified in paragraph 
490.105(c), with applicable transportation network for those targets 
(target scope) defined in paragraph 490.105(d). Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 
150(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 150(e), FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(e)(1) 
that State DOTs would establish targets within 1 year of the effective 
date of this rule, and for each performance period thereafter the State 
DOTs would establish and report the targets to FHWA by the due date 
provided in Sec.  490.107(b)(1). The FHWA anticipates the final rule 
for this proposal to be effective no later than October 1, 2015. This 
would allow for at least a 1-year period for States to establish 
targets so that they can be reported in the first biennial performance 
report which would be due to FHWA by October 1, 2016. The FHWA 
recognizes that if the final rule is effective after October 1, 2015, 
the due date to report State DOT targets for the first performance 
period may need to be adjusted. If it becomes clear that the final rule 
won't be effective until after October 1, 2015, FHWA will consider 
adjusting the due date in the final rule or will issue implementation 
guidance that would provide State DOTs a 1-year period to establish and 
report targets.
    The proposed schedule would require the establishment and reporting 
of targets at the beginning of each performance period or every 4 
years. With the exception of the allowance proposed in Sec.  
490.105(e)(6), FHWA recommends that State DOTs would not have the 
ability to change targets reported for a performance period. 
Considering this proposed limitation, State DOTs would need to provide 
for sufficient time to fully evaluate their targets before they are due 
to be reported to FHWA.
    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in Sec.  
490.105 (e)(2) that State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs to 
establish consistent targets, to the maximum extent practicable. The 
coordination would be accomplished in accordance with 23 CFR 450. The 
FHWA recognizes the need for State DOTs and MPOs to have a shared 
vision on expectations for future condition/performance in order for 
there to be a jointly owned target establishment process.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to 
establish additional targets for any of the proposed measures in 
Subparts C and D, beyond the required statewide target. The State DOT 
could establish additional targets for any number and combination of 
urbanized areas and could establish a target for the non-urbanized area 
for any or all of the proposed measures. This is intended to give the 
State flexibility when setting targets, and to aid the State in 
accounting for differences in urbanized and the non-urbanized area. For 
instance, a State DOT could choose to establish additional targets for 
a single urbanized area, a number of the urbanized areas, or all of the 
urbanized areas separately or collectively. For States that want to 
establish a non-urbanized target, it would be a single target that 
applies to the non-urbanized area statewide. If the State DOT elects to 
establish any additional targets, they need to be declared and 
described in the State Biennial Performance Report just after the start 
date of a performance period (i.e., Baseline Performance Period 
Report). The FHWA intends to issue guidance regarding the voluntary 
establishment of additional performance targets for urbanized areas and 
the non-urbanized area.
    If a State DOT chooses to establish additional performance targets, 
it would increase the number of performance targets that it reports. 
For example, at a minimum, State DOTs would be required to establish 
four statewide targets for the pavement condition measures, as 
specified in Sec.  490.307. If a State DOT chooses to establish 
additional targets for all 4 pavement condition measures for the single 
largest urbanized area in its state, the State DOT would increase the 
total number of pavement condition targets to eight (4 required targets 
+ 4 additional urbanized area targets = 8).
    For each additional target established, State DOTs would evaluate 
whether they have made progress towards achieving each target and 
report on that progress in their biennial performance report in 
accordance with Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B).
    Any additional targets the State DOT chooses to establish would not 
be subject to the significant progress assessment in Sec.  490.109. 
Because these additional targets are optional and subcomponents of 
targets established under Sec.  490.105(d), including them in the 
significant progress assessment proposed in Sec.  490.109 could result 
in ``double counting'' during that assessment. The FHWA believes that 
excluding these additional targets from the significant progress 
assessment in Sec.  490.109 provides an opportunity for some 
flexibility with respect to establishing the targets and may

[[Page 342]]

encourage State DOTs to establish these additional targets.
    Historically, the Census has defined urbanized areas every 10 
years, and these boundaries can be adjusted (see 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34)). 
The FHWA recognizes that the urbanized area boundaries and resulting 
non-urbanized area boundary have the potential to change on varying 
schedules. Changing a boundary during a performance period may lead to 
changes in the measures reported for the area, and could impact how an 
established target relates to actual measured performance. Thus, FHWA 
proposes that State DOTs would need to describe the urbanized area 
boundaries and the non-urbanized area boundary in place at the start of 
a performance period in the Baseline Performance Period Report, and use 
those same boundaries throughout a performance period. This will 
eliminate the potential for inconsistencies in the extent of the 
network used to establish targets and calculate measures in urbanized 
areas and the non-urbanized area, and provide consistency in reporting 
established targets for those areas.
    The urbanized area boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the 
year the Baseline Performance Report is due and are applicable to the 
entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved 
adjustments to an area boundary during the performance period for other 
reasons. Any changes in urbanized area boundaries during a performance 
period would not be accounted for until the following performance 
period.
    The FHWA is seeking comments on this approach for establishing 
optional additional targets for urbanized areas and the non-urbanized 
area. The FHWA would also like comments on any other flexibilities it 
could provide to or identify for State DOTs related to the voluntary 
establishment of additional targets. Some examples include:
     Providing options for establishing different additional 
targets throughout the State, particularly for the States' non-
urbanized area; and
     Expanding the boundaries that can be used in establishing 
additional targets (e.g., metropolitan planning area boundaries, city 
limit boundaries, etc.).
    As described in Sec.  490.105(f), an MPO would have the option to 
establish a quantifiable target for its metropolitan planning area. As 
described in 23 CFR 450.312, the boundaries of the metropolitan 
planning area include, at a minimum, the entire existing urbanized area 
(as defined by the Census Bureau) plus the contiguous area expected to 
become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period. The FHWA recognizes 
the challenges in coordinating targets between State DOTs and MPOs, 
especially in cases where metropolitan planning areas across multiple 
State boundaries. The FHWA intends for State DOTs and MPOs to 
collectively consider goals and issues when establishing both State DOT 
and MPO targets. For reporting purposes, FHWA expects MPOs to report 
progress to the relevant State DOT for the entire metropolitan planning 
area.
    To illustrate the differences in boundaries and how they might be 
addressed for one of the pavement condition measures, the following 
example is provided regarding the target establishment boundary 
differences that could exist in the State of Maryland today.
     Urbanized Areas: Based on the 2010 Census, the State of 
Maryland contains part or all of 11 urbanized areas. Of these urbanized 
areas, 5 are shared with neighboring States.
     Metropolitan Planning Areas: Currently, the State contains 
part or all of six metropolitan planning areas. Of these areas, four 
metropolitan planning areas are shared with neighboring States. (A map 
of Metropolitan Planning Areas and Urbanized Areas of the State of 
Maryland is included in the docket.)
     Statewide Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional State 
target for the Percentage of Interstate System lane-miles in Good 
condition within the State's urbanized areas would represent those 
portions of the 11 urbanized areas within the geographic boundary of 
the State of Maryland, in aggregate.
     Single Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional urbanized 
area target for a single urbanized area would represent the anticipated 
Percentage of Interstate System lane-mileage in Good condition within 
the identified urbanized area, based on the corresponding boundary 
described Baseline Performance Period Report. In the case of the 
Hagerstown urbanized area, the target would be established for the 
portion of the urbanized area in the State of Maryland.
     MPO Target Extent: Each of the six MPOs would establish 
individual targets for representing the anticipated Percentage of 
Interstate System lane-mileage in Good condition within their entire 
metropolitan planning area, regardless of State boundary. In the case 
of the Hagerstown--Eastern Panhandle MPO in Maryland/West Virginia/
Pennsylvania, the MPO would establish target for Interstate System 
lane-mileage in Good pavement condition within its metropolitan 
planning boundary that extends beyond Maryland State boundary and into 
Pennsylvania State boundary, while the Maryland DOT would establish its 
target for the area only within its State boundary.
    The FHWA is seeking comment on alternative approaches that could be 
considered to effectively implement 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23 
U.S.C. 150(d)(2) considering the need for coordination required under 
23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II).
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(e)(4) that State DOTs establish 
targets with a 2-year time horizon (i.e., 2-year target) and a 4-year 
time horizon (i.e., 4-year target) for each performance period. Each 
performance period, defined in Sec.  490.101, would begin on the 
January 1 of the year in which the State DOT target is reported (i.e., 
State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report required in Sec.  
490.107(b)(1)) to FHWA and would extend for a duration of 4 years. 
Additionally, the midpoint of a performance period would occur 2 
calendar years after the beginning of a performance period. Thus, 2-
year targets would be the anticipated or intended condition/performance 
level at the midpoint of each performance period, and 4-year targets 
would be the anticipated or intended condition/performance level at the 
end of each performance period. It is important to emphasize that 
established targets (2-year target and 4-year target) would need to be 
considered as interim conditions/performance levels that lead toward 
the accomplishment of longer-term performance expectations in the State 
DOT's long-range statewide transportation plan \45\ and NHS asset 
management plans.\46\ As defined in Sec.  490.101, a target is a 
numeric value that represents a quantifiable level of condition/
performance in an expression defined by a measure. The FHWA proposes 
that a target would be a single numeric value representing the intended 
or anticipated condition/performance level at a specific point in time. 
For example, the proposed measure, Percentage of pavements of the 
Interstate System in Good condition (in Sec.  490.307(a)(1)), would be 
a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition 
(Sec.  490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA 
proposes that a target for this measure would be a percentage of lane-
miles of the Interstate System in Good condition expressed in one tenth 
of a percent. As a hypothetical example, a 2-year target and a 4-year 
target would be 39.5% and 38.5%, respectively for

[[Page 343]]

the proposed measure Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System 
in Good condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 23 U.S.C. 135(f).
    \46\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA is proposing this definitive performance period while 
recognizing that planning cycles and time-horizons for long-term 
performance expectations differ among State DOTs. The FHWA felt that 
although differences exist, it was necessary to utilize a 4-year 
performance period considering the following implementation 
expectations:
     Provide for a link between the interim, short-term targets 
(i.e., 2-year and 4-year time horizons) to individual State DOT's long-
term performance expectations as part of performance-based planning and 
programming process;
     Ensure the time horizon is long enough to allow for 
condition/performance change to occur through the delivery of 
programmed projects;
     Align the schedule of reporting on targets and the 
evaluation of progress toward achieving the targets with the biennial 
performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e); and
     Report targets using a consistent performance period as 
part of the evaluation of the State DOTs' effectiveness of performance-
based planning process to the Congress by October 1, 2017, as required 
by 23 U.S.C. 135(h).
    The FHWA anticipates that the State DOTs would establish targets 
for the measures listed in Sec.  490.105(c) and report the established 
targets to FHWA by the statutory deadline for the first biennial report 
of October 1, 2016.\47\ The FHWA considered a number of alternatives 
for a consistent time horizon (i.e., performance period) across the 
State DOTs to ensure consistent reporting of targets and assessment of 
progress toward achieving those targets for carrying out the 
requirements in the statutory provisions.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
    \48\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e), 23 U.S.C. 135(h), and 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FHWA considered the data collection cycles associated 
with other proposed measures. The FHWA also assessed the inherent time 
lag between data collection and target establishment due to necessary 
data processing, data quality management, data analysis, and other 
required business processes necessary for target establishment. The 
FHWA intends to minimize the time lag between the end of a performance 
period and the time of subsequent biennial performance reporting under 
23 U.S.C. 150(e) to ensure a timely assessment of progress toward 
achieving the targets. Thus, FHWA proposes that the first 4-year 
performance period start on January 1, 2016, and end on December 31, 
2019, and subsequent performance periods would follow thereafter, for 
the measures listed in Sec.  490.105(c). A diagram for proposed 
performance periods for target establishment, condition/performance 
measure data collection and assessment, and biennial performance 
reporting is exhibited in Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.003


[[Page 344]]


    As shown in Figure 1, for the first performance period, the latest 
measured condition/performance data through December 31, 2015, is the 
baseline condition/performance. The State DOTs would establish 2-year 
targets as the condition/performance anticipated at a midpoint, which 
would be indicated by the latest measured condition/performance data 
through the midpoint of the performance period (December 31, 2017, for 
the first performance period). Similarly, the State DOTs would 
establish 4-year targets as the condition/performance anticipated at 
the end of a performance period that would be indicated by the latest 
measured condition/performance data through the end of the performance 
period (December 31, 2019, for the first performance period). It is 
important to note that the frequency of data collection cycle depends 
on the individual measure. For example, the Interstate System pavement 
condition measures provided in Sec.  490.307(a)(1) and (2) would 
require a data collection frequency of 1 year as specified in Sec.  
490.309(b)(1). Conversely, non-Interstate NHS condition measures, 
provided in Sec.  490.307(a)(3) and (4), respectively, would require a 
data collection frequency of 2 years as specified in Sec.  
490.309(b)(2).
    Data collection frequency requirements are defined in the Data 
Requirement sections for each measure in the relevant subparts. This 
proposed timeline is intended to: (1) Satisfy the first State DOT 
biennial performance report due on October 1, 2016, as described in the 
discussion on Sec.  490.107; (2) accommodate data collection cycles; 
and (3) minimize the time lag between the end/midpoint of a performance 
period and the following biennial performance reporting date, as 
described in the discussion sections in Sec. Sec.  490.107 and 490.109. 
Baseline condition and target establishment for subsequent performance 
periods would follow a similar timeline as the first performance 
period. The proposed 2-year and 4-year targets are timed so that the 
targets are on the same cycle as the biennial report under 23 U.S.C. 
150(e), and are also necessary for FHWA to determine the significant 
progress for NHPP measures as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). The 
FHWA must make this determination every 2 years, after a State DOT 
submits each biennial report.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(e)(5) that State DOTs report 
their established targets (2-year and 4-year) and progress toward 
achieving their targets in the biennial performance report required per 
23 U.S.C. 150(e) as specified in Sec.  490.107. As discussed in Sec.  
490.105(e)(2), State DOT coordination with relevant MPOs would be 
required for selection of targets. Thus, FHWA proposes that the State 
DOTs would be able to provide relevant MPOs' targets to FHWA, upon 
request, each time the relevant MPOs establish or adjust MPO targets, 
described in Sec.  490.105(f).
    The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs would need to consider many 
factors in establishing targets that could impact progress such as 
uncertainties in funding, changing priorities, and external factors 
(see Sec.  490.109(e)(4)) outside the control of the State DOTs. Thus, 
FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(e)(6) that State DOTs may adjust their 
established 4-year targets when they submit their State Biennial 
Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance period 
(i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in Sec.  
490.107(b)(2)). This target adjustment allowance would be limited to 
this specific report and not allowed at any other time during the 
performance period. The FHWA feels that this frequency of adjustment 
allows a State DOT to address changes they could not have foreseen in 
the initial establishment of 4-year targets while still maintaining a 
sufficient level of control in the administrative procedure necessary 
to carry out these program requirements in an equitable manner. For 
example, the 4-year target established in 2016 (the 1st State Biennial 
Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1) may be adjusted in 2018 
(2nd State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1). The 
State DOT would report and justify this adjusted target in the second 
State Biennial Performance Report due on October 2018 (i.e., Mid 
Performance Period Progress Report). The details of reporting 
requirements for adjusting a target are discussed in Sec.  
490.107(b)(2).
    In Sec.  490.105(e)(7), FHWA proposes that State DOTs are not 
required to establish their 2-year targets in the beginning of the 
first performance period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial Performance 
Report illustrated in Figure 1) for the Interstate System pavement 
condition measures, provided in Sec.  490.307(a)(1) and (2). As 
proposed in the Sec.  490.105(e)(4) discussion, the first performance 
period baseline condition/performance data would need to be collected 
prior to the start of the performance period for establishing targets. 
However, FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs may not be able to meet 
all data requirements in Sec.  490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the 
first proposed performance period for the Interstate System pavement 
condition measure. Thus, FHWA proposes that for the first performance 
period, State DOTs would only be required to establish their 4-year 
targets in the beginning of the first performance period (i.e., the 1st 
State Biennial Performance Report in 2016 illustrated in Figure 1) for 
the Interstate System pavement condition measures. If necessary, the 
State DOTs would adjust their established 4-year targets at the 
midpoint of the first performance period (i.e., the 2nd State Biennial 
Performance Report in 2018 illustrated in Figure 1) as described in 
Sec.  490.105(e)(6).
    Similar considerations should be made regarding baseline 
conditions/performance. For those State DOTs who may not be able to 
collect data required in Sec.  490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the 
first proposed performance period, FHWA proposes that such State DOTs 
would not be required to establish baseline condition/performance in 
the 1st State Biennial Performance Report in 2016, but would update 
baseline condition/performance with the 2-year condition/performance at 
the midpoint (2nd State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in 
Figure 1) in 2018. Also, at the midpoint of the first performance 
period, FHWA would determine the State DOT's 2-year targets for the 
Interstate System pavement condition measures as ``progress not 
determined'' for the 2-year significant progress determination as 
discussed in Sec.  490.109(e)(3).
    In Sec.  490.105(f) FHWA proposes MPO requirements for the 
establishment of targets for all measures identified in Sec.  
490.105(c). These requirements are being proposed to implement the 23 
U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B) target establishment provisions in a manner that 
provides for a level of consistency necessary to evaluate and report 
progress at an MPO and the national level while providing for a degree 
of flexibility to support metropolitan planning needs. The FHWA also 
attempted to develop these target establishment requirements so that 
they could be met by all MPOs, recognizing that MPOs currently vary in 
capability, resource availability, and ability to establish performance 
targets.
    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C), FHWA proposes in Sec.  
490.105(f)(1) that each MPO would establish 4-year targets no later 
than 180 days after the relevant State DOT establishes its targets, 
described in the discussion of Sec.  490.105(e)(1). The FHWA recognizes 
the burden on MPOs, regardless of size, to establish targets. In 
addition, MPOs are not directly subject to the requirement to evaluate 
the progress toward achieving NHPP targets. As a result, FHWA proposes 
in this section that MPOs would not be required to

[[Page 345]]

establish 2-year targets, which are required of State DOTs under Sec.  
409.105(d)(4). Thus, in case of the first performance period, FHWA 
anticipates that the State DOTs would establish targets for the 
measures listed in Sec.  490.105(c) prior to the first State DOT 
biennial performance report, and the MPOs would establish targets no 
later than 180 days thereafter. The timeline for target establishment 
for State DOTs is illustrated in Figure 1 in the discussion of Sec.  
490.105(e)(4). If the rule is effective on or after September 30, 2015, 
MPOs may not have the opportunity to establish their own targets in 
time for States to consider those MPO targets when submitting the 1st 
Baseline Performance Period Report. The MPOs would be required to 
establish targets for all applicable measures.
    Similar to the requirement for State DOTs, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(f)(2) that MPOs 
coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) to establish consistent targets, 
to the maximum extent practicable. This would be done in accordance 
with 23 CFR part 450.
    As part of the MPO-State DOT coordination in establishing State DOT 
and MPO targets described in the discussion of Sec.  490.105(e)(2) and 
(f)(2), FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(f)(3) that the MPOs establish 
targets with a 4-year performance period identical to the State DOT's 
performance periods discussed in the Section-by-Section for Sec. Sec.  
490.101 and 490.105(e)(4). It is important to emphasize that 
established MPO targets (4-year target) must be considered as interim 
conditions/performance levels that lead toward the accomplishment of 
longer-term performance expectations in the longer-term performance 
expectations in the MPO's Metropolitan Transportation Plan \49\ and 
relevant State DOT NHS asset management plans.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i).
    \50\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA recognizes the burden on the MPOs to establish their own 
performance targets. Consequently, as proposed, the MPOs would have the 
flexibility to establish their targets using one of two options. The 
FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(f)(4) that MPOs would establish targets, 
specific to the metropolitan planning area, by either: (1) Agreeing to 
plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the 
accomplishment of the relevant State DOT targets, or (2) committing to 
quantifiable targets for their metropolitan planning area. This 
proposal would give MPOs two options to establish targets. The MPOs 
could establish their own quantifiable targets. Alternatively, 
recognizing that the resource level and capability of some MPOs to 
reliably predict performance outcomes varies across the country, FHWA 
is proposing an approach that would allow MPOs that did not want to 
establish their own quantifiable target to establish targets by 
supporting the State DOT targets for performance. The MPOs would do 
this through their investment decisionmaking process. Regardless of 
which option MPOs use to establish targets, FHWA recognizes that the 
MPOs may need to work with relevant State DOTs to coordinate, plan, and 
program projects for their planning area.
    As stated in the Sec.  490.105(e)(6) discussion, State DOTs may 
adjust their established 4-year targets when they submit their State 
Biennial Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance 
period (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in 
Sec.  490.107(b)(2)). The MPOs are required to establish targets 180 
days after the date on which the relevant State DOT(s) establishes 
their targets, per the MPO target establishment requirements specified 
in 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT adjusts a target, as allowed 
under the proposed Sec. Sec.  490.105(e)(6) and 490.107(b)(2), any 
relevant MPOs would be required to also re-establish targets for the 
same measures within 180 days. However, FHWA is proposing that the MPO 
only be required to re-establish the target if the MPO had originally 
elected to establish a target supporting the State DOT target for that 
measure. In that case the adjusted State target could directly impact 
an MPO's investment decisionmaking. Specifically, FHWA proposes in 
Sec.  490.105(f)(7) that if a State DOT adjusts their 4-year target in 
the State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report and the MPO 
established the relevant target by supporting the State DOT target as 
allowed under Sec.  490.105(f)(4), then the MPO would be required, 
within 180 days, to report to the State DOT if they either: (1) Agree 
to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the 
accomplishment of State DOT adjusted target, or (2) commit to a new 
quantifiable 4-year target.
    As with State DOTs, FHWA recognizes that MPOs would need to 
consider many factors in establishing targets, such as uncertainties in 
funding, changing priorities, and external factors outside the control 
of the MPO. Thus, FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(f)(8) that MPOs may 
adjust their established 4-year target in a manner that is consistent 
with agreed upon terms documented in the relevant Metropolitan Planning 
Agreement. The FHWA recognizes that for many MPOs the establishment of 
targets, especially for the first performance period, would be new and 
challenging and that there may be a need to revisit targets during the 
4-year performance period. The FHWA requires State DOTs and MPOs to 
coordinate with each other throughout the performance period with 
respect to any target adjustments so their targets are consistent to 
the maximum extent practicable.
    In Sec.  490.105(f)(9), FHWA proposes that the method by which MPOs 
would report their established baseline condition/performance, targets, 
and progress toward achieving targets would be as specified in Sec.  
490.107(c). The FHWA further proposes in 490.105(f)(9) that the State 
would be able to provide MPO targets to FHWA on request after targets 
are established or adjusted by MPOs within the State. The FHWA believes 
that, through the coordination between a State DOT and relevant MPOs, 
the reporting on MPO progress can be shared between these two entities. 
However, FHWA expects to be able to request from a State DOT the MPO 
targets and reports on progress, as needed, to better understand 
performance expectations and outcomes in urbanized areas across the 
country. The State DOT and MPO would document the target establishment 
reporting process in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in accordance 
with 23 CFR 450. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to work with multiple 
MPOs to agree on a process for reporting that would provide a 
sufficient level of consistency to understand performance in urbanized 
areas collectively across the State.
Discussion of Sec.  490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets
    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e), State DOTs are required to submit 
reports on performance targets and progress in achieving established 
targets to FHWA not later than October 1, 2016, and every 2 years 
thereafter. The FHWA evaluated whether there were any existing reports 
that could be used to meet these 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting 
requirements. For the non-HSIP related measures, FHWA determined that 
none of the existing reporting requirements met the statutorily 
required timing. In addition, none of the existing reports currently 
provide the consistency needed to implement performance management 
nationally. For these reasons, FHWA proposes a new biennial report to 
meet the statutory requirements.

[[Page 346]]

    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107 for State DOT performance 
reporting to be used--
     In the determination of significant progress toward 
achieving NHPP targets;
     to provide some of the information needed for FHWA to 
report to Congress on the performance-based planning process evaluation 
of each State DOT as required by 23 U.S.C. 135(h);
     to understand performance needs, expectations, and 
progress at a State, regional, and national level; and
     to provide for transparency by communicating the content 
of the report to the public on an externally facing Web site in a 
downloadable format.
    In Sec.  490.107(a), FHWA proposes that all performance targets 
described in Sec.  490.105 would be subject to biennial performance 
reporting in this section. However, reporting on performance targets 
for carrying out the HSIP would be in accordance with Sec.  490.213. In 
the National Performance Measures; HSIP NPRM, FHWA proposed a 1 
calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target 
establishment, and reporting. As discussed in Sec.  490.101 of that 
NPRM, a 1-year period was proposed to align the safety measures with 
the requirements for the common measures reported as a requirement of 
23 U.S.C. 402. The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs use an electronic 
template to deliver the report proposed in this section. The FHWA 
intends to provide additional guidance regarding the template which 
will include fields to capture all of the information that would be 
required to be reported under this rulemaking.
    For consistent State DOT and FHWA reporting, FHWA proposed a 4-year 
performance period in Sec.  490.105(e)(4). The FHWA recognizes the need 
for uniform data collection timing in order to ensure consistency in 
reporting and repeatable target establishment and progress evaluation 
processes. Thus, in subsequent sections, FHWA proposes the timing of 
data collection based on the specified performance periods, described 
in Sec.  490.105(e)(4). The FHWA proposes that data collection 
requirements for the established measures support the reporting 
requirements in this section and be in accordance with the respective 
Data Requirements section (e.g., Sec.  490.309) for each measure. To 
ensure consistency in reporting, FHWA proposes that the reported 
baseline condition/performance be derived from the latest data 
collected through the begin date of a performance period, the reported 
actual 2-year condition/performance would be derived from the latest 
data collected through the midpoint of a performance period, and the 
reported actual 4-year condition/performance would be derived from the 
latest data collected through the end date of a performance period. 
This is illustrated in Figure 1 in the discussion for Sec.  
490.105(e)(4).
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b) that State DOTs submit to 
FHWA three types of Biennial Performance Reports: Baseline Performance 
Period Report, Mid Performance Period Progress Report and Full 
Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes to make a 
distinction between the three reports to emphasize the differences in 
content while aligning the reporting process to the proposed target 
establishment, progress evaluation, and other performance reporting 
requirements. Figure 2 is a timeline of the proposed reporting timeline 
for the Biennial Performance Reports. The proposed requirements 
identify three distinct biennial reports (baseline, mid and full) and 
State DOTs will be expected to provide information for at least one of 
these reports every 2 years. Because these reports would be required 
for consecutive 4-year performance periods, the information provided in 
the Full Performance Period Report would be provided at the same time 
and may include some of the same information as the Baseline 
Performance Period Report for the next performance period. As discussed 
previously, FHWA is proposing to provide for an electronic template 
that State DOTs would use to capture the information required in each 
of the three reports discussed in Sec.  490.107(b). It is envisioned 
that this electronic template would provide the State DOT all of the 
relevant fields for the information that would be due at the 
corresponding 2-year point. This approach would allow State DOTs to 
provide all of the required baseline and progress reporting information 
at one time. The proposed regulations identify three distinct reports 
to clarify the purpose and timing of information that would be required 
to be reported every 2 years.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 347]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.004

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Baseline Performance 
Period Report in Sec.  490.107(b)(1), where the State DOTs would be 
required to submit a Baseline Performance Period Report no later than 
October 1 of the first year of a performance period. The FHWA is 
proposing that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 
2016, which would require State DOTs to submit their first Baseline 
Performance Period Report no later than October 1, 2016. Subsequent 
Baseline Performance Period Reports would be due no later than October 
1 every 4 years thereafter.
    The required contents for the Baseline Performance Period Report 
are discussed in Sec.  490.107(b)(1)(ii). The FHWA is proposing that 
the Baseline Performance Period Report would be the official source of 
the non-safety targets established by the State DOT. To document the 
established targets, FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A) that 
State DOTs would report both their established 2-year and 4-year 
targets for each measure listed in 490.105(c) for the current 
performance period. Considering the proposed phase-in of new 
requirements for Interstate System pavement condition measures 
discussed in Sec.  490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not be required to 
report 2-year targets for Interstate System pavement measures in the 
Baseline Performance Period Report

[[Page 348]]

for the first performance period. If a State DOT elects to establish 
additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas, as described 
in Sec.  490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would be required to include 
these targets (both 2-year target and 4-year target) in the report.
    Although FHWA would not approve the State DOT submitted targets, a 
discussion of the basis for each established target would be included 
in the Baseline Performance Period Report. The FHWA believes that this 
discussion is needed to explain the State DOT's basis for the selection 
of a target. The FHWA intends to publish the State DOT established 
targets on a publicly available Web site with the target basis 
discussion. It is important to note that, although other MAP-21 
required plans and reports may discuss and use targets, FHWA is 
proposing that only the targets reported in the Baseline Performance 
Period Report and the HSIP report would be viewed by FHWA as those that 
are established by the State DOT to meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 
150(d).
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B) that the State DOTs 
report baseline condition/performance associated with each target 
reported to represent the latest condition/performance data collected 
through the begin date of a performance period. Considering the first 
performance period is proposed to begin on January 1, 2016, the 
baseline condition/performance for this performance period would be the 
most recent condition/performance that represents actual condition/
performance through December 31, 2015. Considering the proposed phase-
in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement condition 
measures discussed in Sec.  490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not be 
required to report baseline conditions for Interstate System pavement 
measures in the Baseline Performance Period Report for the first 
performance period. If a State DOT elects to establish additional 
targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas as described in Sec.  
490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would report baseline condition/
performance that represent these areas in addition to the statewide 
baseline condition/performance. As an example, for the Percentage of 
pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition measure (in Sec.  
490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 
System in Good condition (Sec.  490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth 
of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a baseline condition/performance 
for this measure would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate 
System in Good condition expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a 
hypothetical example, baseline condition/performance would be 37.7% for 
the proposed measure Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System 
in Good condition.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs 
would be required to also include a discussion in the Baseline 
Performance Period Report, to the maximum extent practical, of how the 
established 2-year and 4-year targets support longer term performance 
expectations in other performance-related plans, such as the State 
asset management plan and the long-range statewide transportation plan.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) that State DOTs 
would be required to report the geographic boundaries and Decennial 
Census population data used to determine target scope, IRI rating and 
establish any additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. 
Similarly, in Sec.  490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that State DOTs 
would be required to report the NHS network limits used for target 
establishment. The State DOT would report both the urbanized area 
boundaries and NHS limits used for target establishment by identifying 
the corresponding data inventory year of the HPMS that includes this 
information. Using HPMS data items for the data year identified by the 
State, FHWA would be able to extract pavement and bridge condition data 
for the appropriate NHS and/or urbanized area the State DOT used to 
establish targets. The FHWA would use this information in making its 
progress determinations in future years. It is the State's 
responsibility to ensure that the data entered into HPMS reflects the 
information that is used for target establishment.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 349]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.005

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Mid Performance Period 
Progress Report in Sec.  490.107(b)(2). In Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(i), FHWA 
proposes that State DOTs would be required to submit a Mid Performance 
Period Progress Report no later than October 1 of the third year of a 
performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the first performance 
period would begin on January 1, 2016, which would require State DOTs 
to submit their first Mid Performance Period Progress Report no later 
than October 1, 2018, and subsequent Mid Performance Period Progress 
Reports would be due no later than October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
    In Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents for 
the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. In Sec.  
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required 
to report 2-year condition/performance in each Mid Performance Period 
Progress Report. As exhibited in Figure 3, FHWA proposes that the 2-
year condition/performance would be reported to represent the actual 
condition/performance derived from the latest measured condition/
performance through the midpoint of a performance period. Considering 
the first performance period is proposed to begin

[[Page 350]]

on January 1, 2016, 2-year condition/performance for this performance 
period would be the most recent conditions/performance that represents 
actual conditions/performance through December 31, 2017 (illustrated in 
Figure 3).
    Considering the proposed phase-in of new requirements for 
Interstate System pavement condition measures discussed in Sec.  
490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would be required to report the 2-year actual 
Interstate System pavement conditions as the baseline condition by 
updating their Baseline Performance Period Report for the first 
performance period.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) that State DOTs 
would also include a discussion of progress made toward the achievement 
of 2-year targets established for the current performance period. In 
this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 2-year 
condition/performance with the 2-year targets that were established for 
the performance period. For example, in the first Mid Performance 
Period Progress Report in 2018, a State would compare the actual 
condition/performance through 2017 with the 2-year targets established 
for the first performance period and discuss why targets were or were 
not achieved. This discussion could describe accomplishments achieved, 
planned activities, circumstances that led to actual conditions/
performance, or any other information that State DOT feel would 
adequately explain progress. Although this explanation would not be 
used in the determination of significant progress, as described in 
Sec.  490.109, this information would be made available to the public 
to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes 
achieved. As an example, the Percentage of pavements of the Interstate 
System in Good condition measure (in Sec.  490.307(a)(1)), would be a 
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition 
(Sec.  490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA 
proposes that a 2-year condition/performance for this measure would be 
a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition 
expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 2-year 
condition/performance would be 39.2% for the proposed measure 
Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) that, in each Mid 
Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussion 
on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State 
asset management plan for the NHS. The FHWA is reserving Sec.  
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(D). The statutory requirement for State DOTs to 
include a discussion on ways in which State DOTs are addressing 
congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the 
National Freight Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the third 
Performance Measure NPRM. This content is required as part of the 
report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4). The FHWA recognizes that the 
Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the first performance period 
may be impacted by the timing of the implementation of the new NHS 
asset management plan requirement. The FHWA intends to issue further 
guidance if the timing of this plan would impact a State DOT's ability 
to comply with the requirements proposed in Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C).
    As discussed in Sec.  490.105(e)(6), FHWA recognizes the challenges 
that State DOTs may face in target establishment and, as a result, 
proposes to allow State DOTs to adjust their 4-year targets. The FHWA 
is proposing in Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(E) that State DOTs would report 
any adjustments to their 4-year targets in the Mid Performance Period 
Progress Report. The FHWA proposes that this target adjustment 
allowance would be limited to this specific report and not allowed 
prior to, or following, the submittal of the Mid Performance Period 
Progress Report. For example, if a State DOT elects to adjust a 4-year 
target established in its first Baseline Performance Period Report in 
2016, the State DOT would only be able to adjust the 4-year target in 
its Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2018. In addition to 
reporting the adjusted 4-year target, the State DOT would be required 
to include a discussion on the basis for the adjusted 4-year target(s) 
for the performance period and a discussion on how the adjusted targets 
support expectations documented in longer range plans, such as the 
State asset management plan and the long-range statewide transportation 
plan.
    In Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs 
would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the 
2-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period 
Report that would had been established for the NHPP measures specified 
in Sec.  490.105(c)(1) through (3).\51\ Additionally, State DOTs would 
provide information to discuss how the actual 2-year condition/
performance levels compare with the NHPP targets. Although this 
discussion would not be used in the determination of significant 
progress for the NHPP, this information would be made available to the 
public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual 
outcomes related to the NHPP. For example, the State DOT may use this 
discussion to explain how they effectively and efficiently delivered a 
program designed to achieve 2-year targets, how this may have resulted 
in actual condition/performance improvements for the NHPP, and how the 
State DOT would deliver a program to make significant progress toward 
achieving 4-year targets for the NHPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The performance measures for performance of the Interstate 
System and performance of the non-Interstate NHS will be proposed in 
the third performance measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs 
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were 
outside of their control that impacted its ability to make significant 
progress for the NHPP 2-year targets. This discussion would be used by 
FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration of 
extenuating circumstances discussed in Sec.  490.109(e)(4).
    In Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(H), FHWA proposes that if FHWA 
determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward 
the achievement of NHPP targets, in two consecutive biennial FHWA 
determinations, then the State DOT would include a description of the 
actions they will undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required 
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if either of the Interstate 
pavement condition targets did not make significant progress in 
previous two determinations (determinations at midpoint and the end of 
previous performance period), then the State DOT would include in the 
current Mid Performance Period Report a description of the actions the 
State DOT will undertake to improve conditions with respect to both 
Interstate pavement condition measure. If FHWA determines that the 
State DOT has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does 
not need to include such description in the Mid Performance Period 
Progress Report.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.007

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Full Performance Period 
Progress Report in Sec.  490.107(b)(3). In Sec.  490.107 (b)(3)(i), 
FHWA proposes that State DOTs be required to submit a Full Performance 
Period Progress Report no later than October 1 of the first year 
following the completion of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing 
that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2016, which 
would require State DOTs to submit their first Full Performance Period 
Progress Report no later than October 1, 2020, and subsequent Full 
Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no later than October 
1 every 4 years thereafter.
    In Sec.  490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents for 
Full Performance Period Progress Report.
    In Sec.  490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would 
be required to report 4-year condition/performance in each Full 
Performance Period Progress Report. As exhibited in Figure 4, FHWA 
proposes that the 4-year condition/performance be reported

[[Page 352]]

to represent the actual condition/performance derived from the latest 
measured condition/performance through the end of a performance period. 
Considering the first performance period is proposed to begin on 
January 1, 2016, the 4-year condition/performance for this performance 
period would be the most recent conditions/performance that represents 
actual conditions/performance through December 31, 2019 (illustrated in 
Figure 4). As an example, the Percentage of pavements of the Interstate 
System in Good condition measure (in Sec.  490.307(a)(1)), would be a 
percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition 
(Sec.  490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA 
proposes that a 4-year condition/performance for this measure would be 
a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition 
expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 4-year 
condition/performance would be 37.7% for the proposed measure 
Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B), that the State 
DOTs would also include a discussion of progress made toward the 
achievement of 4-year targets established for the relevant performance 
period. In this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 4-
year condition/performance with the 4-year targets that were 
established for the performance period. For example, in the first Full 
Performance Period Progress Report in 2020, a State would compare the 
actual condition/performance through 2019 with the 4-year targets 
established for the first performance period and discuss why targets 
were or were not achieved. This discussion could describe 
accomplishments achieved, planned activities, circumstances that led to 
actual conditions/performance or any other information that State DOT 
would feel would adequately explain progress. Although this explanation 
would not be used in the determination of significant progress, this 
information would be made available to the public to provide an 
opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes achieved.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) that, in each Full 
Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussion 
on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State 
asset management plan for the NHS. The FHWA is reserving Sec.  
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(D). The statutory requirement for State DOTs to 
include a discussion on ways in which State DOTs are addressing 
congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the 
National Freight Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the third 
Performance Measure NPRM. This content is required as part of the 
report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4).
    In Sec.  490.107(b)(3)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs 
would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the 
4-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period 
Report, or adjusted in the current Mid Performance Period Progress 
Report, that would had been established for the NHPP measures specified 
in Sec.  490.105(c)(1) through (3).\52\ Additionally, State DOTs would 
provide information to discuss how the actual 4-year condition/
performance levels compare with the NHPP targets. Although this 
discussion would not be used in the determination of significant 
progress for the NHPP, this information would be made available to the 
public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual 
outcomes related to the NHPP. For example, the State DOT may use this 
discussion to explain how they effectively and efficiently delivered a 
program designed to achieve targets and how this may have resulted in 
actual condition/performance improvements for the NHPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The performance measures for performance of the Interstate 
System and performance of the non-Interstate NHS will be proposed in 
the third performance measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs 
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were 
outside of their control that impacted its ability to make significant 
progress for the NHPP 4-year targets. This discussion would be used by 
FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration of 
extenuating circumstances discussed in Sec.  490.109(e)(5).
    In Sec.  490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA proposes that if FHWA 
determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward 
the achievement NHPP targets, in two consecutive biennial FHWA 
determinations, then the State DOT would include a description of the 
actions they would undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required 
under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if either of the NHS bridge 
condition targets did not make significant progress in previous two 
determinations (determination at the end of previous performance period 
and determination at the midpoint of current performance period), then 
the State DOT would include in the current Full Performance Period 
Report) a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake to 
improve conditions with respect to both Interstate pavement condition 
measures. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has achieved 
significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to include such 
description in the Full Performance Period Progress Report.
    The FHWA proposes, in Sec.  490.107(c), that MPOs document the 
manner in which they report their established targets within the 
Metropolitan Planning Agreement required by 23 CFR 450. The MPOs would 
report their established targets to the relevant State DOTs in a manner 
that is agreed upon by both parties and documented in the Metropolitan 
Planning Agreement. The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.105(e)(5), that MPOs 
would report targets to the State DOT in a manner that would allow the 
State DOT to provide FHWA, upon request, all of the targets established 
by relevant MPOs. The FHWA also proposes that MPOs would report 
baseline condition/performance, and progress toward the achievement of 
their targets, in the system performance report in the metropolitan 
transportation plan, in accordance with 23 CFR 450.
Discussion of Sec.  490.109 Assessing Significant Progress Towards 
Achieving the Performance Targets for the NHPP
    In Sec.  490.109, FHWA proposes the method by which FHWA would 
determine if a State DOT has achieved or is making significant progress 
toward the achievement of their NHPP performance targets as required by 
23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). Although this determination could directly impact 
State DOTs, MPOs could also be indirectly impacted as a result of the 
link between metropolitan and statewide planning and programming 
decisionmaking. This rulemaking discusses the approach that would be 
taken by FHWA to assess State DOT performance progress, but does not 
include a discussion on the method that may be used by FHWA to assess 
the performance progress of MPOs. Interested persons should refer to 
the updates to the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations for 
any discussions on the review of MPO performance progress. (RIN 2125-
AF52).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The NPRM was published on June 2, 2014 at 79 FR 31784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA recognizes the risks associated with target establishment 
and that there may be factors outside of a State DOT's control that 
could impact its ability to achieve a target. A number

[[Page 353]]

of factors were raised as part of the performance management 
stakeholder outreach sessions regarding target establishment and 
progress assessment, including: the impact of funding availability on 
performance outcomes, the reliability of the current state-of-practice 
to predict outcomes resulting from investments at a system level, the 
impact of uncertain events or events outside the control of a State DOT 
on performance outcomes, the need to consider multiple performance 
priorities in making investment trade-off decisions, and the challenges 
with balancing local and national objectives. The FHWA considered these 
risks and factors in its evaluation of different approaches to 
implement this provision.
    The FHWA recognizes that the State DOTs and MPOs have to consider 
multiple performance priorities in making investment trade-off 
decisions and that there are challenges with balancing local and 
national objectives. During outreach, stakeholders raised a number of 
concerns regarding progress assessment, including: \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ AASHTO (2013), SCOPM Task Force Findings on MAP-21 
Performance Measure Target-Setting. http://scopm.transportation.org/Documents/SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20Findings%20on%20Performance%20Measure%20Target-Setting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The desire to foster balanced and sound decisions rather 
than focusing on achieving one target at the expense of another;
     the desire to assess progress using quantitative and 
qualitative input; and
     the desire to avoid unachievable targets.
    Thus, FHWA plans to implement an approach that balances the 
uncertainty facing State DOTs in predicting future performance with the 
need to provide for a fair and consistent process to determine 
compliance. The approach being proposed by FHWA is based on the 
following principles:
     Focus the Federal-aid highway program on the MAP-21 
national goals in 23 U.S.C. 150(b); and
     recognize that State DOTs need to consider fiscal 
constraints in their target establishment.
    Because targets would be established for an entire system, FHWA 
acknowledges that State DOTs may make small incremental changes within 
that system that would not necessarily appear in a quantitative 
assessment. In some instances, even a modest increase in improvement 
when evaluating on a system-wide basis, would constitute significant 
progress. Accordingly, FHWA proposes that for each NHPP target, 
progress toward the achievement of the target would be considered 
``significant'' when either of the following occur: The actual 
condition/performance level is equal to or better than the State DOT 
established target; or actual condition/performance is better than the 
State DOT identified baseline condition/performance. The FHWA believes 
that any improvement over the baseline, which represents a 0.1% 
improvement over 4 years, should be viewed as significant progress 
considering the fiscal short falls and financial uncertainties many 
State DOTs are faced with today. Although a change of 0.1% may appear 
insignificant, this degree of improvement to a pavement or bridge 
system is difficult to achieve. In many States this level of change 
would require improvements to hundreds, if not thousands, of miles of 
pavements and/or bridges. The FHWA reviewed the extent to which State 
DOTs have been able to actually change system conditions of their 
pavements and bridges in recent years to validate this view of 
significant progress. This review supported FHWA's belief that any 
improvement should be considered significant as many State DOTs have 
seen minimal or no improvements in the condition of their pavement and 
bridge networks in recent years. This is the case even with the influx 
of funding State DOTs were able to utilize through the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. For these reasons, FHWA believes 
that any improvement over the baseline should be viewed as significant 
progress.
    The FHWA believes that State DOTs would, through a transparent and 
public process, want to establish or adjust targets that strive to 
improve the overall performance of the Interstate and National Highway 
systems. For this reason, FHWA did not want to consider an approach to 
determine significant progress that would be difficult to meet as it 
could discourage the establishment of ``reach'' targets due to the 
perceived unmanageable risks that would need to be assumed by State 
DOTs. The FHWA feels that the progress assessment approach proposed in 
this NPRM, which considers improvement from baseline conditions to be 
significant, would not discourage State DOTs from establishing targets 
to improve the overall conditions of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS.
    The FHWA therefore proposes a three-step process to determine if a 
State DOT has made significant progress toward the achievement of their 
NHPP targets. This proposed process would be completed by FHWA each 
time the State DOT submits their Mid Performance Period Progress Report 
and their Full Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes 
that the significant progress determination process for two consecutive 
reporting periods would be done on an ongoing basis and would not 
restart at the beginning of each performance period.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ For example, assuming a determination would be made in 
2021, that period-end determination for 1st performance period would 
be based on information submitted in the 2016 Mid Performance Period 
Report and the 2020 Full Performance Period Report. The next 
determination made in 2023 would be based on information submitted 
in the 2020 Baseline Performance Period Report/2022 Mid Performance 
Period Progress Report Performance Period Report and the 2020 Full 
Performance Period Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Step 1: The State DOT would evaluate and report the 
progress they have made toward the achievement of each target.\56\ This 
evaluation would be documented in the discussion of the progress 
achieved since the most recent report. The State DOT would document in 
their Biennial Performance Reports any extenuating circumstances 
outside their control they may have impacted their ability to achieve 
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The performance measures for performance of the Interstate 
System and performance of the non-Interstate NHS will be proposed in 
the third performance measures NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Step 2: The FHWA would review the completeness of the 
content provided in their Biennial Performance Reports and would 
determine if any documented extenuating circumstances would be 
considered. State DOTs would provide any additional information to 
FHWA, upon request, if the report is incomplete.
     Step 3: The FHWA would determine if the State DOT has made 
significant progress for each target using the following sources:
    [cir] Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for 
pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec.  490.105(c)(1) and 
(2);
    [cir] Data contained in the NBI for targets established for bridge 
condition measures, as specified in Sec.  490.105(c)(3); and
    In Sec.  490.109(a), FHWA proposes that it would determine whether 
the State DOT has achieved or has made significant progress toward 
achieving each of the State DOT targets for the NHPP measures 
separately.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.109(b) that FHWA would determine 
whether a State DOT has or has not made significant progress toward the 
achievement of NHPP targets at the midpoint and the end of each 
performance period.
    In Sec.  490.109(c), FHWA proposes that FHWA would determine 
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's NHPP 
targets after the State

[[Page 354]]

DOT submittal of the Mid Performance Period Progress Report and after 
the State DOT submittal of the Full Performance Period Progress Report. 
This process, which is described in the discussion of Sec.  490.107(b), 
would follow the proposed schedule illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. The 
FHWA would make a significant progress determination for the NHPP every 
2 years. The FHWA would notify all State DOTs of the outcome of the 
determination within a reasonable time and would advise any State DOTs 
that would need to add additional information to their next biennial 
report (see 450.109(f)). The FHWA intends to post State DOT targets, 
actual condition, and progress reports on an externally facing Web 
site. This information would provide for greater transparency and allow 
the public access to the progress State DOTs have made in achieving 
their targets. The FHWA does not intend to post the significant 
progress determinations on the Web site but will make this information 
available in an electronic format on request.
    The FHWA also expects that during a performance period, State DOTs 
would routinely monitor leading indicators, such as program delivery 
status, to assess if they are on track to make significant progress 
toward achievement of a State DOT's NHPP targets. If a State DOT 
anticipates it may not make significant progress, it is encouraged to 
work with FHWA and seek technical assistance during the performance 
period to identify the actions that can be taken to improve progress 
toward making significant progress. The FHWA also seeks comment on 
whether it should require State DOTs to more frequently (e.g., 
annually) evaluate and report the progress they have made.
    The FHWA desires to use national datasets in a consistent manner as 
a basis for its determination of a State DOT's significant progress 
toward the achievement of NHPP targets. The FHWA is proposing to 
determine actual pavement and bridge conditions from the HPMS and NBI, 
respectively, in a manner that could be replicated by State DOTs and 
others that may have interest in assessing actual pavement and bridge 
conditions. Thus, in Sec.  490.109(d), FHWA proposes to use: The HPMS 
as the data source to determine actual pavement conditions; the NBI as 
the data source to determine actual bridge condition measures; and NHS 
limits and urbanized area boundaries identified in the Baseline 
Performance Period Report. The data source for performance of the 
Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS measures will be proposed 
in the third Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures NPRM.
    The FHWA is proposing a period of approximately 60 days for 
Interstate pavements and bridges and 90 days for non-Interstate NHS 
pavements and bridges after the State DOT submits data to the HPMS and 
NBI for the State DOT to update the data to address missing or 
incorrect data. Considering this time allowance, FHWA is proposing that 
specific dates be established to extract data from the HPMS and NBI. 
The FHWA would use this data to determine significant progress toward 
the achievement of NHPP targets and assess the pavement and bridge 
minimum condition. These dates are necessary in order to make 
significant progress determinations in a timely manner and to determine 
compliance with the minimum condition requirements in sufficient time 
to apply any resulting obligation, transfer, or set-aside requirements 
by the next fiscal year. The FHWA is proposing the following dates to 
extract data from the HPMS and the NBI to determine actual conditions:
     June 15--The FHWA is proposing to extract data from the 
HPMS and the NBI on this date to determine the actual Interstate System 
pavement conditions and NHS bridge conditions. This date is needed to 
provide for sufficient time to carry out any penalties resulting from 
non-compliance with the minimum condition requirements in 23 U.S.C. 
119(f);
     August 15--The FHWA is proposing to extract data from the 
HPMS on this date to determine the actual non-Interstate NHS pavement 
conditions. This date is needed to provide for sufficient time to make 
a determination of significant progress for the achievement of NHPP 
targets.
    In Sec.  490.109(e), FHWA proposes a process for significant 
progress determination for each established NHPP target. In paragraph 
(e)(1), FHWA proposes that FHWA would assess how the target established 
by State DOT compares to the actual condition/performance using the 
data/information sources described in Sec.  490.109(d). In paragraph 
(e)(2), FHWA proposes that FHWA would determine that a State DOT has 
made significant progress for each 2-year or 4-year NHPP target if 
either: (i) The actual condition/performance level is better than the 
baseline condition/performance reported in the State DOT Baseline 
Performance Period Report; or (ii) the actual condition/performance 
level is equal to or better than the established target. For 
illustrative purposes, 2-year and 4-year evaluations where improving 
targets were established for the first performance period are shown in 
Figure 5.

[[Page 355]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.008

    The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs have to consider their fiscal 
constraints in target establishment and acknowledges that, in some 
cases, anticipated condition/performance could be projected to decline 
from (or sustain) the baseline condition/performance due to lack of 
funding, changing priorities, etc. In these cases State DOTs should 
document why they project a decline in condition in their Biennial 
Performance Reports as discussed in paragraph Sec.  
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). The FHWA proposes that significant progress could 
still be made in cases where the established target indicates a decline 
from (or sustain) the baseline condition/performance. For the decline/
sustain condition/performance scenario, FHWA proposes that significant 
progress is made for a target when actual condition/performance level 
is equal to or exceeds the target. For illustrative purposes, 2-year 
and 4-year evaluations where declining targets were established for the 
first performance period are shown in Figure 6.

[[Page 356]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.009

    As discussed in Sec.  490.105(e)(7), FHWA recognizes that some 
State DOTs may not be able to collect the data required in Sec.  
490.309(b)(1) for the Interstate System pavement condition prior to the 
start of the first performance period. Considering this limitation, 
FHWA proposed in Sec.  490.109(e)(3) that for the first performance 
period, the State DOTs would not be required to report their 2-year 
targets and their baseline condition for the Interstate System pavement 
condition measures at the beginning of the first performance period. 
Consequently, FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.109(e)(3) that progress 
towards the achievement of 2-year targets for the Interstate System 
pavement condition measures would not be subject to the FHWA 
determination under Sec.  490.109(e)(2), even if they elect to collect 
the data needed to calculate the Interstate System pavement measures in 
the first 2 years of the first performance period.
    The FHWA proposes to accomplish this by categorizing the 2-year 
targets for the Interstate System pavement condition measures as 
``progress not determined,'' which would exclude these targets from the 
FHWA determination under Sec.  490.109(e)(2). The FHWA expects that 
some State DOTs would adjust their established 4-year targets at the 
midpoint of the first performance period because they may have had 
limited baseline data available to them when they first established the 
target. For the first performance period, FHWA would determine 
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's Interstate 
System pavement condition targets based on HPMS data extracted on June 
15 of the year in which the Full Performance Period Progress Report is 
due. The FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs would be able to 
establish and report baseline condition and 2-year targets for the 
proposed Interstate System pavement condition measures in their first 
Baseline Performance Period Report. However, FHWA proposes that the 
process established in this section applies to all State DOTs in order 
to ensure uniformity in the progress determination process.
    In Sec.  490.109(e)(4), FHWA proposes that if a State DOT does not 
provide sufficient data and/or information for FHWA to make a 
significant progress determination for NHPP target(s), then that State 
DOT would be deemed to not have made significant progress made for 
those individual NHPP target(s).
    If a State DOT encounters extenuating circumstances beyond its 
control, the State DOT would document the explanation of the 
extenuating circumstances in the biennial performance report. This 
explanation would address factors that the State DOT could not have 
foreseen and were outside of their control when they established 
targets at the beginning of the performance period. If the explanation 
is accepted by FHWA, then the associated NHPP target(s) would be 
excluded from FHWA determination under Sec.  490.109(e)(2). If the 
explanation is not accepted by FHWA, then the State DOT would be deemed 
to not have made significant progress for the target. Extenuating 
circumstances would include:
     Natural or man-made disasters causing delay in NHPP 
project delivery, extenuating delay in data collection, and/or damage/
loss of data system;
     sudden discontinuation of Federal Government furnished 
data due to natural and man-made disasters or lack of funding; and/or
     new law or regulation directing State DOTs to change 
metric and/or measure calculation.
    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), in Sec.  490.109(f), FHWA proposes 
that if FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant 
progress for an NHPP targets in two consecutive FHWA determinations, 
then the State DOT

[[Page 357]]

would include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description of 
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve all targets in same 
measure group. The FHWA proposed the measure groups as follow:
     Interstate System pavement condition--both proposed 
measures Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good 
condition in Sec.  490.307(a)(1) and Percentage of pavements of the 
Interstate System in Poor condition in Sec.  490.307(a)(2);
     Non-Interstate NHS pavement condition--both proposed 
measures Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good 
condition in Sec.  490.307(a)(3) and Percentage of pavements of the 
non-Interstate NHS in Good condition in Sec.  490.307(a)(4);
     NHS bridge condition--both measures Percentage of NHS 
bridges in Good condition in Sec.  490.407(c)(1) and Percentage of NHS 
bridges in Poor condition in Sec.  490.407(c)(2);
    As a general example of this proposed approach, when a State DOT 
has not made significant progress for any one of the targets for 
Interstate System pavement condition measures, then that State DOT 
would include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description of 
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve targets for all 
Interstate System pavement condition measures.
    Tables 2 and 3 illustrate this proposed determination method. Table 
2 includes the significant progress determination results in 2019 for 
the midpoint 1st performance period and the significant progress 
determination in 2021 for the end of the 1st performance period. Table 
3 includes the significant progress determination results in 2021 for 
the end of the 1st performance period (repeat from Table 2) and the 
significant progress determination in 2023 for the midpoint 2nd 
performance period. In this example, a State DOT has established 
statewide targets, as required, for 2 measures: Percentage of pavements 
in Good Condition on the Interstate System and Percentage of pavements 
in Poor Condition on the Interstate System.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 358]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.010


[[Page 359]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.011

    In Table 2 above, the State DOT has not made significant progress 
towards the target for the Percentage of pavements in Good Condition on 
the Interstate System measure in two consecutive FHWA determinations. 
So the State DOT would include in its next Biennial Performance Report 
(i.e. Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2022) a description of 
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve for both measures--
the Percentage of pavements in Good Condition on Interstate System and 
the Percentage of pavements in Poor Condition on Interstate System 
measures.
    The FHWA believes that any one of the targets could impact other 
targets in the same measure group and FHWA also believes that the State 
DOT's descriptions of the actions for all targets in a same measure 
group would be more logical and sensible in managing performance of 
relevant network (e.g. the entire Interstate System) rather than 
isolated description on a subset of network (e.g. pavements in Good 
Condition on Interstate System). So, FHWA proposes that a State DOT 
would provide a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake 
to achieve all targets in the same measure group.
    As indicated in the previous discussion in Sec.  490.109, FHWA 
would make the significant progress determination each time the State 
DOT submits its State DOT Mid Performance Period Progress Report and 
its State DOT Full Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA 
proposes that the significant progress determination would be done on 
an ongoing/rolling basis and would not restart at the beginning of each 
performance period. So in this example, 2 consecutive reporting would 
also be the significant progress determination results in 2021 for the 
end of the 1st performance period (repeat from Table 2) and the 
significant progress determination in 2023 for the midpoint 2nd 
performance period. Note 4-year condition/performance of the 1st 
performance period is the baseline condition/performance of the 2nd 
performance period.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 360]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.012


[[Page 361]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.013

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    In Table 3, the State DOT has not made significant progress towards 
the Percentage of NHS bridges in Good Condition measure in two 
consecutive FHWA determinations. So the State DOT would include in its 
next Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Full Performance Period Progress 
Report in 2024) a description of the actions the State DOT will 
undertake to achieve statewide targets for both measures Percentage of 
NHS bridges in Good Condition and Percentage of NHS bridges in Poor 
Condition.
    Although State DOTs are required to include a description of the 
actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve targets in its next 
Biennial Performance Report to meet the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 
119(e)(7) and paragraph (f) of this section, State DOTs should not wait 
until next Biennial Performance Report in taking necessary actions. As 
discussed in Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) and (b)(3)(ii)(E), all State 
DOTs are required to discuss the progress they have made toward the 
achievement of targets established for the NHPP measures in each of 
their Biennial Performance Report. Thus, FHWA expects State DOTs would 
routinely monitor leading indicators, such as program delivery status 
and measured data, to assess if they are on track to make significant 
progress for a State DOT's NHPP targets and expects State DOTs to be 
aware of their progress prior to the time of each Biennial Performance 
Report. As discussed in Sec.  490.109(c), if a State DOT anticipates it 
may not make significant progress, they are encouraged to work with 
FHWA and seek technical assistance during the performance period to 
identify the actions that can be taken in a timely manner to improve 
progress toward making significant progress for the targets reported in 
subsequent Biennial Performance Reports. Thus, in Sec.  490.109(f)(6), 
FHWA proposes that the State DOT should, within 6 months of the 
significant progress determination and in a format that can be made 
available to FHWA, document the information specified in this section 
to ensure actions are being taken to improve progress.
Discussion of Sec.  490.111 Incorporation by Reference
    In Sec.  490.111, FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference a 
number of items. First, FHWA proposes to incorporate the proposed HPMS 
Field Manual to codify the data requirements for measures, as discussed 
throughout Part 490, and to be consistent with HPMS reporting 
requirements. The proposed HPMS Field Manual includes detailed 
information on technical procedures to be used as reference by those 
collecting and reporting data for the proposed measures. The proposed 
HPMS Field Manual is included in the docket.
    The FHWA also proposes to incorporate by reference 10 AASHTO 
standards to codify the method and/or the device used to collect data 
for the metrics (i.e., IRI, Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting). 
These AASHTO Standards were developed and adopted

[[Page 362]]

by the AASHTO member States as appropriate national standard practices 
for collecting and reporting pavement and other condition data. The 
incorporated standards are included in the ``Standard Specifications 
for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 34th 
Edition and AASHTO Provisional Standards, 2014 Edition,'' which is 
available for purchase at: https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=2223. The FHWA believes that the entities most 
affected by this proposed regulation, namely State DOTs and MPOs, 
already own a copy of the incorporated AASHTO standards.
    Lastly, FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference the ``Recording 
and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the 
Nation's Bridges,'' which contains all of the NBI Items listed in 
subpart D. This guide is intended for use by States, Federal agencies, 
Tribal governments and other bridge owners in recording and coding the 
data items that comprise the NBI. The Guide is available at no charge 
on the FHWA Web site at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm, and is 
also included in the docket.
    A copy of all of the incorporated documents outlined above will be 
on file and available for inspection at the National Archives and 
Records Administration. These documents will also be available for 
viewing at the Department of Transportation Library.

B. Section-by-Section Discussion for Subpart C: NHPP Measures for 
Assessing Pavement Condition

Discussion of Sec.  490.301 Purpose
    This section describes the general purpose of the proposed subpart: 
To implement certain portions of 23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require FHWA to 
establish performance measures to assess the condition of pavement on 
the Interstate System, performance measures to assess the condition of 
pavement on the non-Interstate NHS, minimum levels for the condition of 
pavement on the Interstate System, pavement data elements that are 
necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a 
performance-based approach, and consider regional differences in 
establishing the minimum levels for pavement condition.
Discussion of Sec.  490.303 Applicability
    The FHWA proposes to specify pavement condition performance 
measures that would be applicable to all mainline Interstate System and 
non-Interstate NHS pavements covered under 23 U.S.C. 119 regardless of 
ownership or maintenance responsibility. Specifically excluded are 
ramps, shoulders, turn lanes, crossovers, rest areas, and non-normally 
traveled pavement surfaces that are not part of the roadway normally 
traveled by through traffic.
Discussion of Sec.  490.305 Definitions
    The FHWA proposes a set of definitions that are specific only to 
this subpart. The FHWA proposes to include definitions for three types 
of pavements: ``asphalt pavements,'' ``Continuously Reinforced Concrete 
Pavement (CRCP),'' and ``Jointed Concrete Pavements,'' because data 
requirements and metrics for the proposed measure are dependent on 
surface type of pavement. The FHWA recognizes some pavements are 
composite pavements that consist of multiple pavement types, such as an 
asphalt pavement overlay over an older jointed concrete pavement. The 
FHWA believes it is sufficient for the purpose of this rulemaking and 
for improved consistency to consider the pavement type of any composite 
pavement as the pavement type that exists in the surface of the 
structure (or the top-most layer).
    The need for consistent definitions was reinforced by a national 
study on pavement roughness \62\ and a regional study on highway 
infrastructure health.\63\ These studies found that both measured 
roughness and distress data are not consistently collected and reported 
by State DOTs across the country. The FHWA is addressing this need by 
proposing definitions for cracking, faulting, IRI, punchout, and 
rutting.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ AASHTO (2008). Comparative Performance Measurement: 
Pavement Smoothness, NCHRP 20-24(37B). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/20-24(37)B_FR.pdf.
    \63\ FHWA (2012). Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway 
Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report, FHWA-HIF-12-049. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/hif12049.pdf.
    \64\ More information about the defined terms associated with 
pavement ``cracking,'' ``faulting,'' ``punchouts,'' ``rutting,'' 
etc., can be found in the ``Distress Identification Manual'' 
published by FHWA. See FHWA 2003, Publication No. FHWA-RD-03-031 
``Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement 
Performance Program.'' http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/reports/03031/03031.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to define ``Cracking'' as a metric that would be 
used for determining pavement condition and a definition for ``Cracking 
Percent'' that would be used to express the percentage of cracking 
exhibiting in a pavement surface. The FHWA proposes to define 
``Cracking Percent'' separately for each type of pavement.
    The FHWA proposes to define ``Faulting'' and ``International 
Roughness Index'' to avoid confusion with any other uses of these terms 
as these pavement conditions are broadly defined. The FHWA believes 
that these proposed definitions would provide greater consistency for 
characterizing pavement condition for the proposed measure.
    For purposes of this subpart, the FHWA proposes to define 
``pavement'' as any hard surfaced travel lanes of any highway. While 
there are many definitions currently in practice, FHWA selected this 
proposed definition because it focuses on the surface of the pavement, 
which is what would actually be measured and evaluated to assess 
pavement condition. The FHWA proposes to include the definition of 
``Pavement Surface Rating (PSR)'' because PSR values were previously 
permitted to be submitted in the HPMS in lieu of IRI, if IRI values 
were not available or obtainable. Under this proposal, PSR could not be 
used in lieu of IRI to measure or rate NHS pavement condition.
    The FHWA proposes to include the definition of ``punchout'' as a 
pavement failure specific to CRCP condition that needs to be evaluated 
for the performance measures.
    The FHWA proposes to define ``rutting'' because it is another 
pavement failure condition that needs to be evaluated for the 
performance measures.
    The FHWA proposes to include the definition of ``sampling'' because 
it is an approach to data collection that is referenced in this NPRM. 
The sampling of some pavement condition data that is currently 
permitted on non-Interstate NHS routes would be discussed in this 
subpart.
Discussion of Sec.  490.307 National Performance Management Measures 
for Assessing Pavement Condition
    The next several sections discuss the measures that are proposed to 
assess pavement condition. This first section introduces the proposed 
measures and the following sections discuss the metrics, data 
requirements, and processes for calculating the measures. Once the 
measures have been established by FHWA, they would be used by States 
and MPOs for the establishment of targets and in the determination of 
progress toward the achievement of targets for pavement condition. In 
addition, FHWA would use these measures to assess compliance with the 
minimum condition of Interstate System pavements as required in 23 
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).

[[Page 363]]

    The establishment of a measure for pavement condition poses 
challenges because current State DOT measure definitions and data 
collection approaches vary across State DOTs and local agencies and 
there is limited availability of consistent data at a national level. A 
summary of the challenges associated with developing national measures 
as documented in national studies 65 66 is provided below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ NCHRP (2009) Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data 
Collection, NCHRP Synthesis 401. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_401.pdf.
    \66\ FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality Management of 
Pavement Condition Data Collection. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Data items collected varies across agencies.--The data 
items the State DOTs collect and the frequency with which they are 
collected, although similar, vary across the agencies. For example, 
Colorado DOT collects cracking, rutting and IRI, but Florida DOT 
collects surface distress, faulting, rutting, and IRI.
     Data collection protocols vary across agencies.--While 
FHWA, AASHTO, and the American Society for Testing and Materials have 
all issued standards for the terminology, definitions, and data 
collection techniques, a recent national study indicated that there is 
still variation in defining types of pavement failures and collection 
methods used by highway and local transportation agencies. In addition, 
while fully automated and semi-automated technologies have gained wide 
acceptance in pavement condition data collection, some State DOTs still 
use manual surveys (including walking and windshield surveys).
     Data collection coverage varies across State DOTs and 
local agencies.--The extent of the pavement system that is monitored 
for condition assessment differs across State DOTs and local agencies 
where there is no consistency in the number of directions, the number 
of lanes, and the percentage of system length that are collected. 
Methods for determining the number and locations of samples vary among 
different State DOTs and the statistical significance of these sampling 
techniques is largely unknown.
     Reporting intervals vary across State DOTs.--Pavement 
condition data is typically aggregated in pavement sections for 
reporting. The section lengths of pavement condition vary from 0.01 to 
1 mile or more depending on State DOT.
     Pavement condition metrics and measures vary across State 
DOTs.--The State DOTs evaluate the condition and anticipated 
performance of pavements differently. Not all State DOTs classify 
pavements as Good, Fair or Poor. The State DOTs that do classify 
pavements as Good, Fair, or Poor, each have unique definitions for 
these terms.
     Data Quality Management practices vary among State DOTs 
from highly elaborate systems to none at all.
    Considering these challenges, FHWA proposes to establish the 
following as part of this rulemaking: (1) State DOTs and MPOs use a set 
of national measures that are based on broadly accepted metrics to 
assess pavement conditions; and (2) data elements and consistent data 
collection and management practices for pavement condition assessment 
that allow State DOTs and MPOs to continue with most of their current 
pavement management practices.
    In Sec.  490.307, FHWA proposes performance measures to assess the 
pavement condition of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS. The 
performance measures for pavements on the Interstate System and the 
non-Interstate NHS would be the Percentages of lane-miles classified in 
Good and Poor Condition. The State DOTs and FHWA would classify each 
section of pavement as Good, Fair, or Poor, based on measurements of 
IRI, percentage of cracking, and either percentage of rutting or 
faulting in each pavement section. Pavement sections would be uniform 
in size, except as provided in Sec.  490.311(c)(1), and would be 
defined using inventory data items that establish the location, number 
of lanes, surface type, and whether a bridge exists in the section. 
These measurements would be rated for severity and combined into an 
overall rating for each section of pavement. The State DOTs would use 
overall ratings for sections contained in the appropriate highway 
system to establish targets and report progress toward the achievement 
of those targets.
    The FHWA believes that the inclusion of IRI in the measure is 
essential to capture the extent that pavement conditions are affecting 
the operation of the highway. Thus, if IRI is excessive, traffic would 
operate at slower speeds to avoid damage to vehicles, maintain safety, 
cause less discomfort to passengers, and avoid damage to cargo. 
Inclusion of Cracking_Percent, rutting and faulting in the measures 
captures the extent of pavement structural deterioration and liability 
for future maintenance and reconstruction. The State DOTs currently use 
similar measurements and data items in their Pavement Management 
Systems, but typically use different standards for data collection and 
different methods for guiding pavement decisions. The FHWA recognizes 
the importance of standardization of data collection and data 
management practices and identifies critical data collection practices 
and methods in Sec.  490.309.
Relationship between Sec.  490.309 (Data Requirements), 490.311 
(Calculation of Pavement Metrics), and 490.313 (Calculation of Pavement 
Management Measures)
    The proposed approach to determining pavement measures includes 
data requirements, methods to determine pavement, and methods to 
calculate pavement condition. This proposed approach is presented in 
the next three sections as follows:
     Data Requirements--Sec.  490.309 outlines the data 
necessary to determine a set of metrics that would be reported to the 
HPMS and then used to calculate pavement measures. The type of data to 
be collected, the methods of data collection, and the extent and 
frequency of collection are all proposed in this section.
     Pavement Metrics--Sec.  490.311 describes a set of metrics 
that would be calculated from the data collected. The proposed pavement 
metrics would be calculated for sections of highway pavement and 
reported by the State DOT to the HPMS.
     Pavement Measures--Sec.  490.313 provides the method to 
calculate measures using the metrics reported in the HPMS. The State 
DOTs would use the measures to report the condition of Interstate 
System and non-Interstate NHS pavements and establish targets and 
report on progress.
Discussion of Sec.  490.309 Data Requirements
    Even before the passage of MAP-21, FHWA and stakeholders recognized 
the need for standardized data collection. The pavement community 
(i.e., FHWA, States, local agencies, private industry and academia) is 
continuing to conduct research to refine and standardize data 
collection, reporting and production. The following are provided as 
example of efforts that are underway, or have recently been completed, 
that support the national pavement performance measure:
     Evaluate differences in State DOTs data sources and the 
HPMS data sources and provide recommended actions to improve any 
consistency issues.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20-24(82) ``Improving 
Consistency in HPMS Pavement Data.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Build on existing work to document the current approaches 
used by State

[[Page 364]]

DOTs to rate overall pavement condition and to drive pavement 
investment decisionmaking.\68\ The outcome of this report would 
recommend approaches that State DOTs can use to develop a national 
pavement performance measure that has the least impact on current 
practices to rate condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ AASHTO led NCHRP project, NCHRP 20-24(37J) ``Comparative 
Study on Pavement Structural Adequacy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA is proposing in Sec.  490.309 the data requirements needed 
to calculate the proposed pavement performance measures, including the 
incorporation by reference of the FHWA HPMS Field Manual \69\ (``HPMS 
Field Manual'') by reference. These requirements are necessary in order 
to calculate the pavement conditions measures discussed in Sec.  
490.313. The existing HPMS was selected as the reporting mechanism for 
this proposed subpart because State DOTs are familiar with this data 
source and its content. In addition, the current HPMS reporting 
frequency closely aligns with this proposal. The following section 
discusses the relevant requirements of the Field Manual. Note that 
definitions and language from the HPMS Field Manual have been used in 
the subpart to avoid confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ FHWA (2013) HPMS Field Manual. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  490.309(a), FHWA proposes that State DOTs and other local 
agencies collect data in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual to 
report four condition metrics: IRI, rutting, faulting, and 
Cracking_Percent. Nearly all State DOTs \70\ currently collect these 
metrics using similar data collection processes that are based on 
existing AASHTO Standards and required for HPMS submittals. In addition 
to the four condition metrics, FHWA proposes that State DOTs provide 
three HPMS inventory data elements that define the pavement sections 
used to calculate the proposed pavement condition. These three 
inventory data elements include: Through Lanes, Surface Type, and 
Structure Type. The data elements identified in this proposed subpart 
are considered necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to 
carry out a performance-based approach as required by 23 U.S.C. 
150(c)(3)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ FHWA (2013) Practical Guide for Quality Management of 
Pavement Condition Data Collection. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  490.309(b), FHWA proposes data requirements that are 
necessary to calculate the four proposed metrics for pavements on the 
Interstate System and on the non-Interstate NHS. The proposed 
requirements in this section define what data would be required to be 
collected, how extensive the data collection would be, and how often 
the data would need to be collected. To ensure data consistency between 
the data collection cycles, FHWA proposes that data would be collected 
in the rightmost lane of travel, or in one consistent lane if the 
rightmost lane is not accessible. Additional data collection 
requirements specified in this section would be more stringent than 
current HPMS requirements in the following areas:
    1. State DOTs would be required to collect data on the full extent 
of Interstate System to calculate the four metrics and on the full 
extent of the NHS to identify the three data elements.
    2. Beginning in 2018, State DOTs would be required to collect data 
on the full extent of non-Interstate NHS to calculate the 4 metrics.
    3. States DOTs would be required to collect data in both directions 
of travel of the Interstate System to calculate the four metrics and 
identify three data elements.
    4. States DOTs would be required to collect data on the full 
Interstate System annually and calculate the four metrics.
    5. States DOTs would be required to collect data on the non-
Interstate NHS biennially after the transition period ending December 
31, 2017.
    The FHWA proposes the specific data collection requirements for 
Interstate System pavements in Sec.  490.309(b)(1) and for non-
Interstate NHS pavements in Sec.  490.309(b)(2). The FHWA recognizes 
that although these proposed data collection requirements would be 
similar to current HPMS data collection practices, they would, in some 
aspects, increase the burden on State DOTs to assess pavement condition 
for national reporting. The FHWA feels that this increased level of 
effort is necessary to improve consistency and to ensure more accurate 
and timely reporting of national pavement conditions. Currently, State 
DOTs typically manage and maintain each direction of the Interstate 
System as separate roadways and only report in one direction. The FHWA 
feels that reporting the measurement in both directions is essential to 
this process.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ FHWA (2012).Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway 
Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report, FHWA-HIF-12-049. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/hif12049.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of HPMS submittal, State DOTs have been required to collect 
and report IRI data on the full length of the NHS annually. In 
addition, as of 2010, State DOTs have been required to collect and 
report rutting, Cracking_Percent, and faulting conditions using a 
sampling approach for all Federal-aid eligible roadway pavements. Since 
2010, FHWA's review of HPMS data submittals has exposed many 
inconsistencies in State DOT submittals. For the Interstate System 
several State DOTs have not submitted any Cracking_Percent, faulting or 
rutting data; others have submitted data only for a limited portion of 
the roadway network; and many anomalies have been found in the data 
that have raised questions regarding the accuracy of the data. 
Inconsistencies in State DOT submittals are not unexpected. While 
sampling can be a valid process for handling large quantities of data, 
it is only representative of actual pavement conditions when it follows 
a known distribution, such as a normal distribution and the data is 
collected randomly. Neither of these conditions exist for pavements on 
the NHS. Collecting data on a truly random basis is not practical or 
desirable for States to use for managing pavement programs. 
Furthermore, the States are adopting automated devices for data 
collection for reasons of objectivity and safety for personnel. 
Although these devices are not a perfect replacement for manual 
surveys, they are rapidly developing and are making the need for 
sampling pavement data obsolete. For these reasons, FHWA is proposing 
to prohibit the practice of expanding samples to populate the HPMS with 
data for the full extent of the system. The FHWA wants data collected 
for the full extent of both the Interstate System and the NHS.
    The FHWA recognizes the increased burden imposed on State DOTs for 
full extent data collection for mainline highways on the non-Interstate 
NHS. In consideration of this fact, FHWA is proposing in Sec.  
490.309(b)(2)(i)(E) to reduce the current frequency of reporting for 
IRI on the non-Interstate NHS from annual reports to biennial 
reporting. In addition, FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.309(b)(2)(ii) and 
(iii) a phased-in approach to comply with data collection requirements 
of the non-Interstate NHS. This approach allows State DOTs to phase in 
these new data collection requirement while continuing their existing 
HPMS reporting practices through the data collection cycle ending on 
December 31, 2017 (the 2nd Data Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below). By 
December 31, 2019, all State DOTs would have a completed data 
collection cycle (the 3rd Data Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below) 
conforming to the new

[[Page 365]]

requirements. In addition to reducing the immediate burden to State 
DOTs, FHWA proposes this transition period so that it will align with 
the State DOT biennial performance reporting requirements under 23 
U.S.C. 150(e). As proposed in Sec. Sec.  490.105 and 490.107 on State 
DOT target establishment and reporting requirements, State DOTs are 
required to establish targets in Calendar Year 2016 for a performance 
period ending in December 31, 2019. Thus, the data collected during the 
data collection cycle ending on December 31, 2019 (the 3rd Data 
Collection Cycle in Figure 7 below), would be used to: (1) Assess 
target achievement for the targets established in 2016; and (2) 
establish a baseline for new targets in 2020 for the performance period 
ending on December 31, 2023.
    In the case of the non-Interstate NHS, a State DOT has a biennial 
data collection cycle. In the first two data cycles, a State DOT would 
collect data for the full extent of the system to allow for reporting 
of the IRI metric for the non-Interstate NHS. However, data collected 
to support the faulting, rutting, and Cracking_Percent would be 
required only in sample panels of the system to meet HPMS reporting 
requirements and would not be required to calculate the pavement 
condition measure proposed in this rulemaking. Beginning with the third 
data collection cycle (the latest data collection cycle that ends on 
December 31, 2019; see Figure 7), and continuing with subsequent 
cycles, State DOTs would be required to collect data for the full 
extent of the system to report the IRI, faulting, rutting and 
Cracking_Percent metrics.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.014

    To ensure the collection of data in a consistent manner to provide 
for credible national performance/condition reporting, FHWA proposes in 
Sec.  490.309(b)(3) the use of the AASHTO data collection standards for 
supporting the proposed measure. The section provides specific data 
collection standards, where appropriate, and incorporates the AASHTO 
standards by reference. The AASHTO standards are proposed because they 
are considered as best practices, specifically by State DOTs, and are 
recognized worldwide. A summary of proposed data collection standards 
is presented in Table 4.

        Table 4--A Summary of Proposed Data Collection Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Data metric                       Proposed protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRI for all Pavement Types...   IRI collection device in
                                accordance with AASHTO Standard M328-14.
                                Collection of IRI data in
                                accordance with AASHTO Standard R57-14.
Cracking_Percent for all        Either manual cracking data
 Pavement Types (Except CRCP).  collection and analysis in accordance
                                with AASHTO Standard R55-10 (2013) or
                                Automated Cracking Data Collection and
                                Analysis in accordance with AASHTO
                                Standard PP67-14 and AASHTO Standard
                                PP68-14.
Cracking_Percent for CRCP....   Percentage of pavement surface
                                with longitudinal cracking and/or
                                punchouts, spalling or other visible
                                defects (as described in the HPMS field
                                manual).
                                Transverse cracking in CRCP is
                                not included in the cracking
                                computation.
Rutting for Asphalt Pavements   Either the 5-Point Collection of
                                Rutting Data method in accordance with
                                AASHTO Standard R48-10 (2003) or the
                                Automated Transverse Profile Data method
                                in accordance with AASHTO Standard PP69-
                                14 and AASHTO Standard PP70-14.
Faulting for Jointed PCCP....   Measured pavement profiles using
                                AASHTO Standard R36-13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 366]]

    In Sec.  490.309(c), FHWA proposes the data collection requirements 
to identify the three data elements that State DOTs would be required 
to use to calculate the performance measures. These are essentially 
highway inventory items that are already reported by State DOTs to the 
HPMS. These data elements define the type of pavement, and whether or 
not there is a bridge at that location. Consistent with all of the 
pavement conditions and measures on the NHS, FHWA proposes that these 
elements be measured and not estimated from samples. This proposed 
approach would help achieve standardized data collection at a national 
level.
Discussion of Sec.  490.311 Calculation of Pavement Metrics
    In Sec.  490.311, FHWA proposes the method to calculate and report 
the four pavement metrics and three inventory data elements discussed 
in Sec.  490.309(a) from the data collected. The FHWA is proposing 
specific methodologies for calculating the metric, where appropriate, 
and incorporates the HPMS Field Manual by reference for any areas not 
specifically covered. The metric and inventory data element reporting 
requirements specified in this section would be more stringent than 
current HPMS requirements in the following areas:
    1. The States DOTs would be required to report the four metrics and 
three inventory data elements in segments of 0.1 mile.
    2. The States DOTs would be required to report the four metrics and 
three inventory data elements biennially for the non-Interstate NHS 
after the transition period ending December 31, 2019.
    3. The State DOTs would be required to report the four metrics and 
three inventory data elements to the HPMS by April 15 each year for 
Interstate System pavements.
    The FHWA is proposing in Sec.  490.311(b) that State DOTs calculate 
the IRI metric from profile data in accordance with AASHTO Standard 
R43-13. The metric would be reported for all pavements as the average 
value in inches per mile, rounded to the nearest whole number, for each 
section. This method has been widely adopted by State DOTs for 
determining the IRI metric.\72\ In addition, FHWA would not permit IRI 
to be estimated from a PSR or other observation-based methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ FHWA 2013, Practical Guide for Quality Management of 
Pavement Condition Data Collection. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/management/qm/data_qm_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of differences in the engineering properties, the 
Cracking_Percent, rutting, and faulting metrics are calculated 
differently for each type of pavement. The FHWA proposes in Sec.  
490.311(b)(2) that for asphalt sections, the Cracking_Percent metric 
would be computed as the percentage of the total area, to the nearest 
whole percent, that are exhibiting cracking, and the rutting metric 
would be computed as the average depth of rutting, to the nearest 0.05 
inch, for the section. The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.311(b)(3) that 
for CRCP, the Cracking_Percent metric would be computed as the 
percentage of the area, to the nearest whole percent, of the full 
section exhibiting longitudinal cracking, punchouts, spalling, or other 
visible defects. In addition, FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.311(b)(3) that 
transverse cracking not be considered in the computation for the 
Cracking_Percent metrics for CRCP because transverse cracking is not 
considered a pavement failure indicator for CRCP. The FHWA proposes in 
Sec.  490.311(b)(4) that for jointed concrete pavement, the 
Cracking_Percent metric would be computed as the percentage of slabs, 
to the nearest whole percent, within the section that exhibit cracking. 
The FHWA proposes that partial slabs should contribute to the section 
that contains the majority of the slab length. In addition, FHWA 
proposes that the faulting metric would be computed as the average 
height, to the nearest 0.05 inch, of faulting between pavement slabs 
for the section.
    The type and extent of cracking used for the Cracking_Percent 
metric varies by pavement type. For asphalt pavement the 
Cracking_Percent metric considers all cracking present in the section 
area, for jointed concrete pavements the Cracking_Percent metric 
considers any crack present in a slab within the section, and for CRCP 
the Cracking_Percent metric considers only longitudinal cracking in the 
section area (plus the additional non-cracking related items discussed 
in Sec.  490.311(b)(3)). The metric calculations of Cracking_Percent 
for different pavements are proposed to align with existing HPMS 
practices and avoid the need for major changes in measurement and 
calculation practices by State DOTs.
    In Sec.  490.311(c)(1), FHWA proposes all pavement metrics and data 
inventory elements be reported in uniform 0.1-mile sections. Shorter 
sections may be used at the beginning of a route, end of a route, or at 
locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not achievable. The 
FHWA feels that a consistent reporting interval reduces discrepancies 
in calculating the percentages of system sections classified in Good, 
Fair, or Poor Condition that are associated with varied section 
lengths. In Figure 8, a \1/2\-mile road measured at both the 0.1-mile 
interval and at 0.5-mile section shows the following hypothetical 
results.

[[Page 367]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.015

    For the 0.1-mile sections shown in Figure 8(a), 40 percent of the 
road is classified Good, 20 percent of the road is classified Fair, and 
40 percent of the road is classified Poor when pavement conditions are 
measured. However, when the same road pavement conditions are measured 
at a 0.5-mile interval as shown in Figure 8(b), the entire roadway (100 
percent) may be summarized (i.e., averaged) to be Fair, which presents 
a very different account of pavement condition for this length of 
roadway as compared to an approach that uses a shorter section length 
to report condition. This 0.1 mile uniform section length, which is 
proposed to be used for the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS, 
is supported by a recommendation provided by stakeholders.\73\ The FHWA 
requests comments on whether a 0.1 mile uniform section length is 
appropriate for both the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ AASHTO (2013). SCOPM Task Force Findings on MAP-21 
Performance Measure Target-Setting. AASHTO Standing Committee on 
Performance Management. http://scopm.transportation.org/Documents/SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20Findings%20on%20Performance%20Measure%20Target-Setting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.311(c)(2) that State DOTs provide a 
single value for each of the four metrics and three data elements for 
each \1/10\ mile segment reported to the HPMS per year. The FHWA feels 
that using uniform section lengths to report to the HPMS will improve 
consistency. Considering this, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would not 
be allowed to break a \1/10\ mile section into multiple shorter 
sections unless the \1/10\ section is truncated at the termini of a 
roadway. A State DOT would also not be allowed to submit multiple 
entries for the four metrics and three data elements for the same \1/
10\ mile section length. This redundant reporting would be considered 
invalid data and would be subject to the requirement specified in Sec.  
490.313.
    Section 490.311(c)(3) proposes that State DOTs would report for 
each section containing any of the four metrics or three inventory data 
elements a time and location reference. The HPMS includes a standard 
location referencing framework that would be required under this 
proposal, which includes the State_Code, Route_ID, Begin_Point, and 
End_Point. The date for which the data represents for each section 
would be reported as year in the HPMS Year_Record field for each of 
sections containing any of the four metrics or three inventory data 
elements. In addition, the Value_Date field would be reported as the 
month and year of data collection for each of the sections containing 
any of the four metrics. This data information is needed to associate 
the reported condition metric to the performance year.
    Section 490.311(c)(4) provides that State DOTs report the four 
metrics and three inventory data elements for the Interstate System to 
the HPMS no later than April 15 of each calendar year. The information 
reported to the HPMS would be calculated from data collected from 
roadway sections in the prior calendar year. For example, the data 
collected from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, would be 
used to calculate the four metrics and three inventory data elements 
that would be reported to the HPMS no later than April 15, 2017. 
Additionally, FHWA is proposing in Sec.  490.311(c)(5) that State DOTs 
report the four metrics and three inventory data elements for the non-
Interstate NHS to the HPMS no later than June 15 of each calendar year, 
the current due date to report to the HPMS.
Discussion of Sec.  490.313 Calculation of Performance Management 
Measures
    In Sec.  490.313, FHWA proposes the method for calculating the 
pavement measures using the pavement metrics and data elements. In 
Sec.  490.313(a), FHWA proposes how the pavement measures would be used 
by FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs.
    In Sec.  490.313(b), FHWA proposes the method to calculate 
condition ratings that would use a Good, Fair, and Poor rating approach 
for each of the four pavement metrics discussed in Sec.  490.311. This 
approach would use thresholds that would be applied to each of the four 
pavement metrics to determine the condition rating of Good, Fair, or 
Poor. The proposed thresholds are based on documented research. As an 
example, the proposed pavement rutting thresholds have been correlated 
to threshold levels that minimize the risk of vehicle hydroplaning.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ ``Potential Safety Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Rutted 
Pavements'' by Start, M R,Kim, J,Berg, W D; Transportation Research 
Record, Issue Number: 1629, Publisher: Transportation Research 
Board,ISSN: 0361-1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.313(b), the criteria to determine 
Good, Fair and Poor pavement condition ratings using each metric. These 
proposed criteria are based on the levels used by FHWA to report ride 
quality conditions for the IRI metric and the default design criteria 
thresholds established for the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design 
Guide.\75\ The proposed criteria to

[[Page 368]]

determine Good, Fair, and Poor ratings are summarized in Table 5. The 
FHWA encourages comments on the appropriateness of these proposed 
criteria and any alternative levels that would be appropriate for 
network level condition assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and 
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures'', NCHRP 1-37A, 2004, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_toc.pdf.

                             Table 5--Proposed Pavement Condition Rating Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Surface type                       Metric                Metric range                Rating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pavements.......................  IRI....................  <95....................  Good.
                                                               95-170: Areas with a     Fair.
                                                                population less than
                                                                1,000,000.
                                                               95-220: Urbanized areas
                                                                with a population of
                                                                at least 1,000,000.
                                                               >170: Areas with a       Poor.
                                                                population less than
                                                                1,000,000.
                                                               >220: Urbanized areas
                                                                with a population of
                                                                at least 1,000,000.
Asphalt Pavement and Jointed          Cracking_Percent.......  <5%....................  Good.
 Concrete Pavement.                                            5-10%..................  Fair.
                                                               >10%...................  Poor.
Asphalt Pavement....................  Rutting................  <0.20..................  Good.
                                                               0.20-0.40..............  Fair.
                                                               >0.40..................  Poor.
Jointed Concrete Pavement...........  Faulting...............  <0.05..................  Good.
                                                               0.05-0.15..............  Fair.
                                                               >0.15..................  Poor.
CRCP................................  Cracking_Percent.......  <5%....................  Good.
                                                               5-10%..................  Fair.
                                                               >10%...................  Poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall pavement condition is derived from the policies that State 
DOTs use for initiating construction activities for maintenance and/or 
safety repairs. State DOTs advise that IRI conditions are more 
difficult to preserve in urbanized areas than in non-urbanized areas. 
In consideration of this and because speeds are typically slower in 
urbanized areas, FHWA is proposing different thresholds for Fair and 
Poor IRI for large urbanized areas. In particular, FHWA proposes that 
the criteria to classify Poor condition be increased to an IRI of 220 
in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million. The proposed IRI 
threshold of 170 is commonly used by State DOTs in non-urbanized areas. 
The proposed IRI threshold of 220 for urbanized areas with a population 
over 1 million is based on the upper end of IRI value distributions 
derived from the data submitted by State DOTs.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ FHWA, Table HM-47 in 2011 Highway Statistic. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/hm47.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traffic levels were not included in the computation of pavement 
conditions except as implied by location as either urbanized or non-
urbanized areas. Although traffic is an important consideration for the 
design of pavements, it is not considered a measure of the existing 
pavement condition. For this reason, the proposed rating system 
described in paragraphs (b) through (e) was designed without weightings 
or other prioritization related to anything other than the physical 
characteristics of the pavement structure. The FHWA is seeking 
stakeholders' comment on the IRI threshold values. Because of safety 
and pavement structural implications, Cracking_Percent, rutting, and 
faulting are the same for all population areas.
    The FHWA proposes that condition ratings would be determined for 
each section of mainline highway.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.313(b)(4) how missing or invalid 
data would be addressed. The FHWA would determine, on the dates 
specified in 490.109(d)(1) and 490.109(d)(2), for the Interstate System 
and non-Interstate NHS, respectively, any mainline mileage that is 
incomplete due to any of the following scenarios:
     Sections are missing, resulting in gaps in the mileage to 
be reported; or
     sections are reported that do not contain all the data 
required in Sec.  490.311(c) or contain invalid data.
    The FHWA is proposing to address incomplete mainline mileage by:
     Rating the mainline mileage as being in Poor condition for 
the corresponding metric where the mileage is considered incomplete due 
to missing or invalid sections for any of the four metrics; or
     rating the mainline mileage as being in overall Poor 
condition where the mileage is considered incomplete due to missing or 
invalid sections for any of the three inventory data elements.
    The FHWA believes that completeness of data is essential to 
reliable and defensible reporting of pavement condition. The HPMS data 
needed to calculate the proposed pavement condition measure is, in some 
cases, incomplete. In 2012, 12 State DOTs were missing data from 
samples that represented at least 50 percent of their Interstate System 
and 3 State DOTs were not able to provide any samples with complete 
data for their portion of the Interstate System. In aggregate, 27 
percent of the full Interstate System lane mileage was represented by 
samples with missing HPMS data in 2012. Approximately 11 percent of the 
Interstate System would be rated in Poor condition if the proposed 
approach to addressing missing data was applied to the 2012 HPMS data. 
In contrast, only approximately 2 percent of the Interstate System 
would be rated in Poor condition if the missing 27 percent of data were 
excluded from the estimated calculation. This does not account for 
invalid data. The FHWA believes that it is critically important to use 
the entire network system (Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS) 
when assessing pavement conditions. The FHWA encourages comments on 
alternative methods for addressing missing or invalid data that would 
provide for an

[[Page 369]]

accurate assessment of network level conditions.
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.313(c) and (d) that an Overall 
Condition Rating be determined based on the individual condition 
ratings for the metrics as illustrated in Figure 9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.016

    For an asphalt or jointed concrete pavement section to be 
classified in overall Good condition, all three criteria would have to 
be met. If a pavement section has two or more Poor criteria, it would 
be classified as Poor. For example, a section exceeding the criteria 
for IRI but not meeting the criteria for Cracking_Percent and the 
criteria for rutting would be classified in overall Poor condition 
because the rutting is a safety hazard and the cracking indicates that 
the section is structurally failing. Because of the distinct 
engineering properties of CRCP, there are only two criteria for 
determining the overall pavement condition, IRI and Cracking_Percent. 
For a CRCP section, both the IRI and Cracking_Percent criteria would 
need to be rated Good in order for a section to be classified in 
overall Good condition. Conversely, for a CRCP section, a condition 
rating of Poor means that both the IRI and Cracking_Percent criteria 
are rated as Poor.
    As outlined above, the FHWA is proposing an approach to determining 
pavement condition that requires at least 2 metrics to be exhibiting a 
Poor level of condition in order for the overall condition of a 
pavement section to be considered Poor. This approach recognizes the 
predominant condition represented by the metrics as the driver of the 
overall pavement condition. An alternative approach could consider the 
lowest rated metric as the indicator driving the overall condition of 
the pavement section, essentially only requiring 1 metric to be in Poor 
condition in order for the pavement section to be rated Poor overall. 
The FHWA elected to use a predominant approach as this concept is 
typical of the approach used by many State DOTs today to evaluate 
pavement condition. In addition, FHWA wanted to propose a condition 
assessment method that minimizes the potential for any single metric, 
such as ride quality, to dominate the condition. Further, FHWA believes 
that a predominant approach more accurately recognizes that pavement

[[Page 370]]

condition is impacted by multiple failure criteria. For example, a 
pavement that is exhibiting both Poor cracking and Poor rutting is more 
indicative of a structural problem as compared to a pavement that is 
only exhibiting Poor cracking.
    In Sec.  490.313(e), FHWA proposes that the Overall condition for 
all pavement types on the non-Interstate NHS be solely based on IRI, 
until the collection cycle ending December 31, 2019.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.017

    For the purpose of establishing targets and reporting of condition, 
FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.313(f) that State DOTs and MPOs report 
system-level condition measure computed to the one tenth of a percent 
as Good and Poor percentages of lane-miles of Interstate System and 
non-Interstate NHS. The Percentages of lane-miles in Good (or Poor) 
condition is calculated from the total of the lengths of the sections 
in Good (or Poor) condition, the number of mainline lanes in each 
section, and the total length of all sections. Bridges would be 
excluded by excluding any samples that have a Structure Type of 1 prior 
to computing all pavement condition measures. State DOTs and MPOs would 
do separate calculations for the Interstate System and non-Interstate 
NHS measures. These measures would be used for establishing targets and 
reporting the condition of pavements in the biennial performance 
report.
Discussion of Sec.  490.315 Establishment of Minimum Level for 
Condition of Pavements on the Interstate System
Selection of Minimum Condition Levels for the Interstate System
    The FHWA is required to establish minimum levels for the condition 
of pavement on the Interstate System for carrying out 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(1). (23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii)) The Interstate System, which 
includes approximately 48,000 miles of access-controlled highways, is 
considered one of the most important infrastructure assets in the 
world.\77\ The FHWA proposes a minimum condition level that would 
minimize impacts to this System: State DOTs maintain no more than 5.0 
percent of their pavements on the Interstate System in Poor 
condition.\78\ In selecting this level, the FHWA evaluated the costs 
and impacts to State DOTs and highway users as well as the estimated 
ability for State DOTs to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ FHWA Highway Statistics 2011, Table VM-1, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/vm1.cfm
    \78\ The FHWA did consider the establishment of different 
minimum condition thresholds for different geographic regions and 
felt that separate thresholds for these areas were not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Poor, as defined in this proposal, represents a level of condition 
that

[[Page 371]]

would adversely impact system performance and the ability to 
effectively manage network level conditions to meet user needs. There 
are several costs and other impacts associated with the existence of 
Poor condition pavements, including increased repair costs, increased 
VOCs, costs associated with work zones, and impacts to the environment, 
local communities and businesses. Considering these impacts, FHWA would 
like to minimize the existence of Poor condition pavements on the 
Interstate System but also allow States flexibility to manage their 
pavements system-wide. The FHWA believes that it is impractical to set 
an expectation to remove all Poor condition pavements from the 
Interstate System as it could result in ineffective pavement management 
practices by forcing State DOTs to chase small percentages of Poor 
pavements at the risk of ignoring efforts to preserve pavements in Good 
and Fair conditions. Understanding this challenge, FHWA believes that a 
minimum condition level of 5.0 percent (approximately 2,400 miles 
nationally) would minimize the costs impacts associated with Poor 
condition pavements on the Interstate System, and would allow State 
DOTs to effectively manage the overall performance of the pavement 
network through the delivery of a mix of treatments to address all 
pavement condition levels. This would optimize investment returns.
    The FHWA also considered current target establishment practices 
used by State DOTs and actual pavement conditions existing on the 
Interstate System. The FHWA reviewed a sample of pavement condition 
target values in use by a number of State DOTs \79\ in their planning 
processes and targets documented in recent research studies.\80\ The 
FHWA found only a limited number of cases where a State DOT has 
established a target specifically addressing pavements on its portion 
of the Interstate System at Poor condition levels. In the majority of 
these cases the target was established at or below 5.0 percent. The 
FHWA's proposal is consistent with policies set by State DOTs that have 
established targets associated with the level of Poor pavements on the 
Interstate System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Washington State DOT Gray Notebook http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/SI_pavement.htm Kansas DOT. KDOT Long 
Range Transportation Plan, Section 2.2 http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LRTP2008/pdf/KS_LRTPFinal.Chapter_2.pdf Texas DOT. TxDOT 
Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan--2035 Final Report, Section 
2.6 http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/slrtp_final_ch2.pdf
    \80\ Pavement Score Synthesis, TXDOT Study, January, 2009, NCHRP 
Report 522, and NCHRP Report 551
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA also evaluated pavement conditions State DOTs submitted to 
the HPMS for the Interstate System in 2012. Although the HPMS data 
submitted in 2012 was not complete and was not reported following the 
same data collection and process standards included in this proposal, 
FHWA believes that it provides a general understanding of the extent to 
which the proposed threshold could be met when implemented. Based on 
the 2012 submitted data, FHWA estimates that approximately 1.7 percent 
of the Interstate System was in Poor condition and that approximately 
87 percent of State DOTs would meet a 5.0 percent threshold on 
allowable Poor pavements.\81\ It is difficult to accurately assess the 
impacts of the proposed 5.0 percent minimum condition level on State 
DOT investment programming for Interstate System pavements because the 
full baseline of conditions using the proposed pavement measures does 
not exist today for every State. The estimates discussed above were 
based on a sample of the full data from States that had provided a full 
baseline condition data. For this reason, FHWA is committed to 
reassessing the minimum Interstate System pavement condition level in 
the future after a sufficient level of data is reported to establish a 
baseline and trends of pavement conditions on the entire Interstate 
System. The FHWA expects to reassess the minimum Interstate pavement 
condition level after the completion of the first full performance 
period to determine if additional system improvements can be achieved 
through adjustments to the required minimum condition level. The FHWA 
will conduct a rulemaking with an opportunity for public comment if it 
is determined through the assessment that the minimum level should be 
adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Estimate based on HPMS data provided by 31 State DOTs and 
excludes Interstate System mileage within these States that is 
represented by samples with missing data. These State DOTs were able 
to submit complete data (needed to calculate the proposed pavement 
condition measure) for samples that represented at least 80 percent 
of their Interstate System lane-miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA further evaluated the 2012 HPMS data to examine the 
possibility of geographical differences in percent lane-miles of the 
Interstate System in Poor pavement condition as described in 23 U.S.C. 
150(c)(3)(B). The FHWA evaluated lane-mile distribution of the 
Interstate System pavement conditions among different traffic volumes, 
climatic conditions, and terrain types. Consequently, the data 
suggested that there is no evidence to conclude that there are 
significant differences in percent lane-miles of the Interstate System 
in Poor pavement condition among the Interstate System pavement 
sections in these various areas. However, FHWA seeks comments on the 
need to establish different thresholds for geographic regions.
    A white paper included in the docket includes additional 
information on FHWA's rationale for the proposed minimum condition 
threshold. Recognizing the limitations associated with an analytical 
approach to developing the threshold, FHWA is seeking comment on:
     The proposed minimum level, including suggestions for 
alternative approaches to implementing the minimum condition 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1);
     potential impacts resulting from the existence of Poor 
condition Interstate System pavements;
     the appropriate threshold level to establish a minimum 
condition for the Interstate pavement system nationally and within each 
State;
     the need to establish different thresholds for different 
geographic regions;
     the need to reassess and potentially adjust, through 
rulemaking, the minimum condition threshold after the completion of the 
first full performance period;
     whether FHWA should, in the final rule, establish a 
minimum condition threshold that would become more stringent over time, 
to replace in the future the proposed initial 5 percent level, in order 
to reflect the improvements made to the system over time; and
     the lowest minimum condition level that could be 
maintained for Interstate System pavements in the future.
Discussion of Sec.  490.317 Penalties for Not Maintaining Condition
    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f), Sec.  490.317 describes the method 
FHWA will use to assess if a State DOT has maintained the minimum 
condition level for pavements on the Interstate System. The FHWA is 
proposing to make this determination after the first full year of data 
collection and each year thereafter. Considering that this rule is 
scheduled to be effective in 2015, the first determination would be 
made in 2017 (after a full year of data collection in 2016) and then 
annually thereafter. The FHWA intends to make this determination in a 
manner that can be replicated by State DOTs and others interested in 
assessing State DOT compliance with Sec.  490.315(a) by

[[Page 372]]

extracting the data needed from the HPMS to make the determination on a 
specific date each year. The FHWA is proposing to extract data from the 
HPMS on June 15th of each year to provide sufficient time for State 
DOTs to report pavement conditions for the prior year to the HPMS. This 
timetable would also enable any requirements to obligate or transfer 
funds to be in place by the next fiscal year.
    If FHWA determines that the condition of the Interstate System 
meets the requirement specified in Sec.  490.317(d), then no further 
action is required by the State DOT for the next fiscal year. If FHWA 
determines that a State DOT is out of compliance with 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(1), then the State DOT would be subject to the requirements 
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A)(i) and (ii).
    The FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.317(e) to notify all State DOTs 
annually of their compliance status with the minimum condition 
requirements prior to October 1 of the year the determination would be 
made.
    Section 490.317(f) outlines the actions that would occur if FHWA 
determines that a State DOT is out of compliance with 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(1). This proposed section incorporates the requirements found in 
23 U.S.C. 119(f). Under this proposal, States determined to be out of 
compliance would be required to: (1) Obligate certain NHPP funds for 
the purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as in effect on the day before 
enactment of MAP-21) and increased by an amount each year after Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2013, and (2) transfer certain apportioned Surface 
Transportation Program for the purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 119 (as 
in effect on the day before enactment of MAP-21). The day before 
enactment of MAP-21, 23 U.S.C. 119 contained the requirements for the 
Interstate Maintenance Program. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(B), the 
requirement specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A) remains in effect until 
the Interstate System pavement condition exceeds the minimum condition 
level established by this NPRM. The FHWA is proposing to implement this 
restoration requirement by making annual determinations of compliance. 
The FHWA is proposing in Sec.  490.317(d) that it would make the 
determination based on the data submitted to the HPMS each year by 
assessing compliance with Sec.  490.315(a) for the most recent 2 years. 
A proposed application of this NHPP minimum condition penalty is 
provided in the docket.
    The following example (illustrated in Table 6) indicates how this 
provision would be carried out. Assuming that this rule is effective in 
2015, a State DOT submits data collected on the Interstate System in 
calendar year 2016 to the HPMS by April 15, 2017, and data collected on 
the Interstate System in calendar year 2017 to the HPMS by April 15, 
2018. The FHWA would review the submitted data for completeness and 
would work with the State DOT to address any missing data. The FHWA 
would extract data from the HPMS on June 15, 2017, to determine State 
DOT compliance with Sec.  490.315(a) in 2016 and would notify the State 
DOT before October 1 of the determination. Similarly in 2018, FHWA 
would extract data from the HPMS, check compliance with the minimum 
level for condition of pavements, and notify the State DOT following 
the same schedule as described for 2017. If FHWA determined in both 
2017 and 2018 that the State DOT did not comply with Sec.  490.315(a), 
then beginning October 1, 2018, the State DOT would need to: (1) 
Obligate, from the amount apportioned to the State for the NHPP, an 
amount that is not less than the Interstate Maintenance apportionment 
for the FY 2009, plus 2 percent per year compounded annually (for the 5 
additional FYs after 2013); and (2) transfer certain apportioned 
Surface Transportation Program funds equal to 10 percent of Interstate 
Maintenance apportionment for the FY 2009. These funds would need to be 
used to improve Interstate pavement conditions (as provided under the 
pre-MAP-21 Interstate Maintenance Program). In 2019 and each year 
thereafter, FHWA would assess the State DOT's compliance with Sec.  
490.315(a). The State DOT would be subject to the obligation 
requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) if in any 
year it is determined that the State DOT was out of compliance with 
Sec.  490.315(a) for the most recent 2 years.

                                              Table 6--Determination of Compliance Based on HPMS Reporting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Obligation  requirement
                                                               Data to be used     Date of  determination    effective date  (if not      Obligation
      Data collection year           HPMS reporting date       for compliance         and notification       meeting  minimum level       requirement
                                                                determination                                     requirement)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2016.........................  April 15, 2017...........  Data extracted      Prior to October 1, 2017.
                                                              from HPMS on June
                                                              15, 2017, for
                                                              calendar year
                                                              2015 and 2016
                                                              Interstate System
                                                              pavement
                                                              conditions.
CY 2017.........................  April 15, 2018...........  Data extracted      Prior to October 1, 2018.  October 1, 2018.........  At least [(FY09IM
                                                              from HPMS on June                                                        *) x (1.02)2019-
                                                              15, 2018, for                                                            2013] ** + [0.10
                                                              calendar year                                                            x (FY09IM *)] ***
                                                              2017 and data
                                                              that was
                                                              extracted on June
                                                              15, 2017, for
                                                              calendar year
                                                              2016.
CY 2018 and each year thereafter  April 15, 20XX+1.........  Data extracted      Prior to October 1,        October 1, 20XX+1.......  At least [(FY09IM
 noted as ``CY 20##'' the                                     from HPMS on June   20XX+1.                                              *) x
 columns to the right.                                        15, 20XX+1 for                                                           (1.02)(20XX+1)-
                                                              calendar year                                                            2013] ** + [0.10
                                                              20XX, and data                                                           x (FY09IM *)] ***
                                                              that was
                                                              extracted on June
                                                              15, 20XX for
                                                              calendar year
                                                              20XX-1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FY 09IM denotes the amount of funds apportioned to a State for FY 2009 under the Interstate Maintenance program.
** Amount of NHPP to be obligated to addressing Interstate System pavement conditions.
*** Amount of STP to be transferred to the NHPP to address Interstate System pavement conditions.


[[Page 373]]

Discussion of Sec.  490.319 Other Requirements
    To implement the Interstate System pavement minimum condition level 
requirement and the issuance of any penalties, required under 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(1), FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.319(a) that each State DOT 
reports the required pavement condition metrics and data elements 
outlined in Sec. Sec.  490.311 and 490.309(b)(4), respectively, to the 
HPMS no later than April 15 of each year. The FHWA recognizes that 
State DOTs need sufficient time after data collection to process data, 
conduct data quality management activities, analyze data, and carry out 
other required business processes that are necessary to prepare data 
for upload into HPMS. Based on previous data management experience, 
FHWA anticipates that additional time would be needed after the State 
DOT reports to the HPMS to conduct checks to assure data quality and 
completeness. Additionally, sufficient time is needed for FHWA's 
compliance determination for minimum condition level, for State DOT 
notification, and for FHWA to issue any resulting penalties so that 
they are effective by the beginning of the next fiscal year as required 
under 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1).
    Thus, FHWA proposes that the State DOTs report to the HPMS the 
proposed Interstate System pavement condition metrics and data elements 
no later than April 15 of each year. This would allow for sufficient 
time to carry out the necessary steps to make a timely and accurate 
minimum condition determination. The FHWA recognizes that the proposed 
schedule to report Interstate System data would accelerate the time 
needed to report to the HPMS, which may impact a State DOT's ability to 
effectively process data and ensure data quality. Understanding this 
potential impact, FHWA is seeking comment from State DOTs on the 
proposed schedule to implement the 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) minimum 
condition requirements.
    Provided that this proposed rule becomes effective in 2015, the 
determination of compliance with the minimum condition requirements 
specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) would be carried out by FHWA for the 
first time in 2018, based on information in the previous 2 years. The 
2017 assessment will review 2016 minimum condition compliance and the 
2018 assessment will review 2017 minimum condition compliance. 
Following this implementation schedule, any transfer and obligation 
requirements under 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) resulting from the minimum 
condition compliance determination would not be in effect until FY 
2019, or by October 1, 2018. Thus, the proposed requirement to submit 
Interstate System data by April 15 would not be in effect until 2017. 
This would allow time for State DOTs to prepare for this proposed 
accelerated data reporting requirement.
    In Sec.  490.319(b), FHWA proposes to retain the requirement 
currently in the HPMS Field Manual that data for the non-Interstate NHS 
pavement condition be reported to HPMS not later than June 15 of each 
year.
    In Sec.  490.319(c), FHWA proposes Data Quality Management program 
requirements to implement 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iv) for pavement 
condition data. Data quality management programs are a standard 
practice in both private industry and the public sector wherever large 
quantities of materials, products, or data are exchanged. For purposes 
of assessing pavement conditions, there are considerable data 
requirements and significant consequences attached to the outcomes of 
the analyses. The FHWA proposes that each State DOT must have a data 
quality management program for the data required to assess pavement 
conditions. This proposal would require State DOTs to submit their Data 
Quality Management Programs to FHWA for approval. Once approved, State 
DOTs would use that program to collect and report data. State DOTs 
would also be required to have FHWA approve significant changes prior 
to implementation. A significant change would occur when a State DOT 
changes fundamental processes, procedures, or acceptance criteria. 
Examples of significant change include moving from in-house data 
collection to contract collection, changing from manual to automated 
data collection, contracting with an independent assurance firm, and 
similar actions. The design of the data quality management program is 
left to discretion of State DOTs, as long as it includes the following 
items:
     Data Collection equipment, calibration, and certification;
     Certification process for persons performing manual data 
collection, if used;
     Data quality control measures conducted both before data 
collection begins and periodically during the data collection program;
     Data sampling, review, and checking processes; and
     Error resolution procedures and data acceptance criteria.

C. Section-by-Section Discussion for Subpart D: National Performance 
Management Measures for Assessing Bridge Condition

Discussion of Sec.  490.401 Purpose
    In Sec.  490.401, FHWA proposes to specify that bridge condition 
performance measures are applicable to all NHS bridges covered under 
the NHPP. In addition, this section emphasizes that the data used for 
the performance measures would need to include all bridges on the NHS 
in the State regardless of ownership, maintenance responsibility, or 
functional classification.
Discussion of Sec.  490.403 Applicability
    In Sec.  490.403, FHWA proposes to specify that the bridge 
performance measures are applicable to all NHS bridges including 
bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS as defined by 23 U.S.C. 103 and 
NHS bridges that cross a State border regardless of ownership or 
maintenance responsibility. The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs 
coordinate with all relevant bridge owners, such as Federal agencies 
that own NHS bridges and other State DOTs that share NHS bridges that 
cross State borders, in order to meet the proposed requirements of 
subpart A. The FHWA recognizes that this differs from certain 
established requirements of the NBIS, such as the NBI data submittal 
process under which States are not responsible for Federal- or tribal-
owned bridges. Similar to the proposed requirement in subpart A that 
requires coordination between State DOTs and MPOs, it is appropriate 
that State DOTs coordinate with all relevant NHS bridge owners for the 
proposed bridge condition performance measures and targets in order to 
ensure consistency.
Discussion of Sec.  490.405 Definitions
    In Sec.  490.405, FHWA proposes to use the definition of ``bridge'' 
found in the NBIS (23 CFR 650.305) for this subpart. The FHWA 
recognizes that States may have differing definitions for ``bridge.'' 
These discrepancies would cause problems in analyzing collected bridge 
data at the national level, and measuring progress toward the national 
goal of ``maintaining the highway infrastructure asset system in a 
state of good repair.'' The use of an established definition would 
continue to provide FHWA consistent and standardized data to be 
analyzed for the evaluation of State and national progress in achieving 
a state of good repair.

[[Page 374]]

    The FHWA also proposes to include a definition for ``Structurally 
Deficient'' to identify the population of NHS bridges for determining a 
State's percentage of deck area of bridges classified as ``Structurally 
Deficient'' and implement the penalty for any State DOT that does not 
maintain the minimum condition level established by 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(2). ``Structurally Deficient'' is a programmatic term that was 
used to administer the Highway Bridge Program. This Program was known 
as the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and was 
eliminated by MAP-21. It was one of three statuses assigned to a 
highway bridge based on an evaluation of NBI data for the purposes of 
determining Highway Bridge Program eligibility. The proposed definition 
would be the same programmatic definition of ``Structurally Deficient'' 
that was used under the Highway Bridge Program. It would provide a 
continued focus of improving a specific population of bridges through 
the penalty and minimum condition level provisions established by 23 
U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
Discussion of Sec.  490.407 National Performance Management Measures 
for Assessing Bridge Condition
    In Sec.  490.407, FHWA proposes the two performance measures to 
carry out the NHPP for State DOTs to use to assess bridge condition on 
the NHS. The proposed measures are: (1) Percentage of NHS bridges 
classified as in Good condition; and (2) Percentage NHS bridges 
classified as in Poor condition. These performance measures would be 
used to demonstrate how investments of Federal-aid funds are utilized 
toward achieving performance targets for all NHS bridges, including 
bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS. The NHS is defined in 23 U.S.C. 
103.
Discussion of Sec.  490.409 Calculation of National Performance 
Management Measures for Assessing Bridge Condition
    In Sec.  490.409(a), FHWA proposes the method that would be used to 
calculate the bridge measures proposed in Sec.  490.407 and outlines 
how FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs would use the bridge measures.
    In Sec.  490.409(b), FHWA proposes the source of data and the 
method to be used in assigning classification for the condition of 
bridges on the NHS, including bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS. 
The Good, Fair, and Poor classification of bridges on the NHS utilizes 
data elements from the NBI database. State DOTs measure and classify a 
number of standard features for bridges in their jurisdiction and then 
report them to FHWA on an annual basis. Based on their NBI data, State 
DOTs would be required to classify all bridges within a State into one 
of the three classifications: Good, Fair, or Poor. These 
classifications and their development are consistent with the 
conclusions and recommendations of a 2011 FHWA study on the use of 
performance management approaches titled, ``Improving FHWA's Ability to 
Assess Highway Infrastructure Health.'' \82\ As noted in this study, 
there are two basic methods FHWA could use as a basis for developing a 
measure to assess bridge condition. The first is a weighted average 
method that consists of calculating a measure of structural adequacy 
based on a weighted average of the deck, superstructure, and sub-
structure condition ratings of a bridge. The second is the minimum 
condition rating method which calculates a measure of structural 
adequacy based on the lowest condition rating of deck, superstructure, 
and sub-structure of a bridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ ''Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure 
Health,'' (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/46000/46100/46182/Improving_FHWA_s_ability_to_assess_highway_infrastructure_health_Pilot_Study_Rpt.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section also proposes that the condition classification of 
Good, Fair, or Poor, be based on a bridge's condition ratings for the 
following NBI Items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, 
and 62--Culverts. Various methods for determining the bridge condition 
based on these NBI items have been studied by FHWA as well as suggested 
by States, including: Each item contributing equally to a final 
average; some items contributing more than others to achieve a weighted 
average; and the minimum rated item controlling (minimum condition 
rating method). In the case of culverts, there is only one item (Item 
62--Culvert) to rate, since culverts do not have NBI Items 58, 59, and 
60.
    The data within FHWA's NBI database, which includes bridge 
condition and geometric information, is utilized to determine overall 
bridge condition. Data in the NBI database is provided to FHWA by State 
DOTs and Federal agencies as required by 23 CFR 650.315. State DOTs are 
required to submit NBI data annually in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
144(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D)(ii).
    Phases of the previously identified 2011 FHWA study, ``Improving 
FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health,'' evaluated 
five different methods (four different weighted average methods and one 
minimum condition rating method) to assign bridge condition based on 
Good, Fair, or Poor ratings. For this study, the NBI database was 
selected as the logical data source because of the consistency of its 
representation of over 40 years of collected data, and because it is 
used by nearly every State DOT as the current basis for their bridge 
decisionmaking. The study discussed and evaluated five different 
methods (four different weighted average methods and one minimum 
condition rating method). The study concluded that for the Interstate 
System--
     Percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor 
were consistent for all methods with little variation;
     minimum condition rating method resulted in the highest 
percentage of bridges in Poor condition;
     percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor 
based on the four weighted average methods are not sensitive to the 
weights; and
     bridge deck conditions alone are not typically the driving 
factor in the Good, Fair, or Poor calculations.
    The FHWA further assessed the different methods and observed that 
the magnitude in differences between condition ratings for individual 
NBI items was somewhat nullified when a final average or weighted 
average method was employed. This observation was also noted in the 
2011 study. The masking or obscuring of possible poor bridge conditions 
is a major concern with the final average or weighted average methods. 
Although these methods could be further refined, the development, 
subjectivity, and complexity of such methods makes them less desirable 
than the simple minimum condition rating method, especially since 
analyses indicate that a refined weighted method would result in the 
same general classification as the minimum condition rating method. 
Therefore, FHWA proposes that for each applicable bridge, the 
performance measures for determining condition be based on the minimum 
value for the following NBI Items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--
Substructure, and 62--Culverts. The FHWA further proposes to weight 
this condition by the respective deck area of each bridge and express 
condition totals as a percentage of the total deck area of bridges in a 
State. The FHWA recognizes that this proposed approach to determining 
bridge condition is different from the approach to determining pavement 
condition, which is based on a cumulative assessment.

[[Page 375]]

    The following flow diagram, Figure 11, provides in visual format 
the classification ratings identified in Sec.  490.409(b)(1) through 
(3). They are as follows: Sec.  490.409(b)(1) assigns a Good 
classification when all of the NBI items are rated as 7 or above; Sec.  
490.409(a)(2) identifies Fair classification when any of the NBI items 
are rated as 5 or 6; and Sec.  490.409(a)(3) assigns a Poor 
classification when any of the NBI items are 4 or less. These 
classification ratings are then used to determine the performance 
measures identified in Sec.  490.407.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.018

    In Sec.  490.409(c), FHWA proposes how to calculate the performance 
measures for assessing bridge condition identified in Sec.  490.407. 
Using NBI data, the ratio of the total deck area of bridges in a 
condition classification to the total deck area of applicable bridges 
is calculated. The deck area of a bridge is proposed to be the product 
of NBI Items 49--Structure Length, and 52--Deck Width. In the case of a 
roadway on fill carried across a pipe(s) or culvert in which headwalls 
do not affect the flow of traffic, NBI Item 32--Approach Roadway Width 
is utilized instead of Item 52--Deck Width, to calculate the deck area. 
The FHWA proposes that this ratio would be calculated by first summing 
the total deck area for each of the three classification conditions 
(Good, Fair, and Poor) for all applicable bridges. Next, the total deck 
area for all of the applicable bridges is calculated. Finally, the 
ratio is determined by dividing the total deck area of bridges for a 
classification condition by the total deck area for the applicable 
bridges. The result would be multiplied by 100 to get the final 
percentages for the performance measures (the percent of bridges in a 
particular classification). The equation is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.019


[[Page 376]]


    In Sec.  490.409(d), FHWA proposes that these measures be used to 
establish targets and report targets and condition.
    In Sec.  490.409(e), FHWA notes that all of the NBI Items (e.g., 
NBI Item 49--Structure Length, NBI Item 52--Deck Width) listed in this 
section are included in the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the 
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges,'' which is 
incorporated by reference in Sec.  490.111.
Discussion of Sec.  490.411 Establishment of Minimum Level for 
Condition for Bridges
    In Sec.  490.411(a) through (c), FHWA incorporates the minimum 
condition level for bridges on the NHS established by 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(2). The minimum condition level is for State DOTs to maintain 
bridges so that the percentage of the deck area of bridges on the NHS 
classified as Structurally Deficient does not exceed 10 percent. This 
minimum is applicable to bridges on the NHS, to bridges on ramps 
connecting to the NHS within a State, and to bridges on the NHS that 
cross a State border.
    The FHWA also proposes the source of data and the method to be used 
in assigning a classification of Structurally Deficient to a bridge. 
The NBI is the definitive source for national bridge information and 
has been used for many years to classify bridges as Structurally 
Deficient, determine eligibility for the Highway Bridge Program, and 
apportion Federal-aid funds. It is for these reasons the NBI is 
proposed to be the source of data for classifying a bridge as 
Structurally Deficient.
    This section also proposes that the classification of Structurally 
Deficient be based on a bridge's condition ratings for the following 
NBI Items: 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, 62--
Culverts, and a bridge's appraisal ratings for NBI Items 67--Structural 
Evaluation, and 71--Waterway Adequacy. The proposed method for 
classification would be the same method used under the Highway Bridge 
Program. This classification methodology is found in the former 
Federal-aid Policy Guide Non-Regulatory Supplement, NS 23 CFR, Part 650 
D, dated September 30, 1992, Transmittal 5, paragraph 9.a. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/0650dsup.cfm). This method would provide a 
continued focus of improving a specific population of bridges through 
the minimum condition level provisions established by 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(2).
    In order to effectively implement FHWA's determination of State DOT 
minimum condition level and assessment of penalty in a timely manner, 
FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.411(d) to make minimum condition level 
determinations for NHS bridges on an annual basis. These determinations 
would be based on data cleared in the NBI as of June 15 of each year. 
Under the NBIS, State DOTs are allowed up to 90 days after the date of 
inspection to enter Structure Inventory and Appraisal data into their 
inventory for State DOT bridges. For all other bridges, they are 
allowed up to 180 days. This time is needed for data processing, data 
quality management, data analysis, and other required business 
processes necessary to report quality data. Based on previous 
experiences with data management, FHWA anticipates State DOTs will need 
90 days after submitting their inventory to the NBI to conduct checks 
to ensure data quality and completeness. Additionally, sufficient time 
is needed for FHWA's minimum condition level determination, for State 
DOT notification, and for FHWA to issue any resulting penalties so that 
they are effective by the beginning of the next fiscal year. After FHWA 
makes its compliance determination, it would notify all State DOTs of 
its determination prior to October 1 of the year in which the 
determination was made.
    Thus, FHWA proposes in Sec.  490.411(e) that the State DOTs submit 
their most current NBI data on highway bridges to FHWA no later than 
March 15 of each year. The FHWA recognizes that this is change from the 
practice of submitting NBI data every April 1; however, this change 
would allow for sufficient time to make a timely and accurate minimum 
condition determination.
    The FHWA estimates that less than 1 percent of all bridges on the 
NHS are on Federal or tribal lands. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to 
consult and coordinate with all relevant entities (e.g., Federal Land 
Management Agencies, tribal governments) so that NBI data for NHS 
bridges on Federal or tribal lands within a State's boundaries can be 
provided and considered when FHWA determines whether a State DOT has 
complied with the minimum condition requirements. Understanding this 
potential impact, FHWA is seeking comment from State DOTs on the 
proposal to implement the 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) minimum condition 
requirements.
    The determination of compliance with the minimum condition 
requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) would be carried out by 
FHWA for fiscal year 2017 and annually thereafter. This timing is based 
on an assessment of minimum condition compliance NBI data submitted in 
2014, 2015, and 2016. Following this implementation schedule, any 
penalties resulting from the minimum condition compliance determination 
would not be in effect until FY 2017 or by October 1, 2016.
    In Sec.  490.411(f), FHWA notes that all of the NBI Items (e.g., 
NBI Item 49--Structure Length, NBI Item 52--Deck Width) listed in this 
section are included in the ``Recording and Coding Guide for the 
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges'', which is 
incorporated by reference in 490.111.
Discussion of Sec.  490.413 Penalties for Not Maintaining Bridge 
Condition
    In Sec.  490.413, FHWA incorporates into the proposed regulation 
the penalty for any State DOT that does not maintain the minimum 
condition level established by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2). The proposed 
section generally describes the minimum condition requirement and the 
consequences when a State fails to comply with those requirements.
    In order to assess State DOT compliance with the minimum condition, 
for the 3-year period preceding the date of the determination, FHWA 
would evaluate annually whether more than 10.0 percent of the total 
deck area of NHS bridges in the State have been classified as 
structurally deficient. If more than 10 percent of the total deck area 
of NHS bridges in the State are classified as structurally deficient 
for the 3-year period preceding the date of determination, then the 
State would need to comply with the proposed 490.413, which 
incorporates the requirements found in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2).
    Under this proposal, States that do not meet the minimum condition 
requirements would be required to obligate a set aside amount equal to 
50 percent of the funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2009 
to carry out the Highway Bridge Program, 23 U.S.C. 144, (as in effect 
on the day before enactment of MAP-21) from the amounts apportioned to 
a State for a fiscal year under section 104(b)(1) (the NHPP) only for 
eligible NHS bridge projects. The day before enactment of MAP-21, 23 
U.S.C. 144 contained the requirements for the Highway Bridge Program.
    The FHWA is proposing to require an obligation of a set-aside of 
certain NHPP funds during the fiscal year following the determination. 
While 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) only references set-aside, FHWA is proposing 
that set aside funds be obligated in order to implement the set aside 
requirement consistent with congressional treatment to address

[[Page 377]]

Interstate Pavement Condition, which requires, in part, an obligation 
of certain NHPP funds if the State does not meet the minimum pavement 
condition requirements. The FHWA also proposes that the bridge minimum 
condition penalty would take effect during the fiscal year following 
the FHWA's determination.
    A set aside is derived from a funding category and results in a 
portion of that funding being segregated and dedicated for a specific 
purpose (the set aside implementing this provision would be segregated 
from NHPP funds and dedicated to addressing NHS bridge conditions). 
Dedication to address bridge condition requires timely obligation. An 
obligation is considered a contractual commitment, which evidences the 
commitment of funds for the specific purpose. Pursuant to authority 
under 23 U.S.C. 315 and after taking into account the heading of 23 
U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(A) indicating that this provision is a ``penalty,'' 
FHWA believes it would be appropriate to require both a set aside and 
obligation of NHPP funds. Implementation of the requirement in this 
manner would cause the States not to lose funds but, States would be 
required to timely obligate the set aside funds to address NHS bridge 
condition. Thus the States subject to this requirement would lose some 
flexibility with NHPP funds when the funds are obligated to address the 
bridge deficiencies. A requirement to obligate, in addition to set 
aside, NHPP funds would result in funding dedicated to improving NHS 
bridges. In addition, FHWA believes it is appropriate to specify the 
timing as to when the provision would take effect; otherwise the 
provision would have little meaning.
    Both of these requirements would be consistent with the minimum 
Interstate pavement condition penalty in 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1)(A), which 
requires an obligation of certain funds within a specific time period. 
To require different outcomes with respect to funding for pavement 
minimum condition and bridge minimum condition, when the purpose of 
both provisions is essentially the same (to require funding to be 
directed to improve condition), would seem to place a priority on 
pavement condition over bridge condition with no rationale to support 
the disparate treatment. This consistency in application of the penalty 
provisions is also important as pavement and bridge condition are both 
part of the NHPP program. The FHWA does not believe that prioritizing 
pavement condition over bridge condition is consistent with the 
national goal in 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(2) of maintaining all infrastructure 
assets in a state of good repair.
    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(B), the requirement specified in 23 
U.S.C. 119(f)(2)(A) remains in effect until less than 10.0 percent of 
the total deck area of the States' NHS bridges is located on bridges 
that have been classified as structurally deficient. The FHWA is 
proposing to implement this restoration requirement by making annual 
determinations of compliance.
    As proposed in Sec.  490.413(b), the determination of compliance 
with the minimum condition requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(2) would be carried out by FHWA in 2016 and annually thereafter. 
This timing is based on an assessment of minimum condition compliance 
with NBI data submitted in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Following this 
implementation schedule, any penalties resulting from the minimum 
condition compliance determination would not be in effect until FY 
2017, or after October 1, 2016. State DOTs have been and currently are 
submitting the necessary NBI data to FHWA. As such, FHWA will have the 
data to make an annual determination of compliance beginning in 
2016.\83\ A proposed application of this NHPP minimum condition penalty 
is provided in the docket along with an example of its application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Questions and Answer 2 on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qabridges.cfm), posted on 9/25/2012, 
provides information on the 3-year period that will be used for the 
first determination of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the address noted in the above 
ADDRESSES section. Comments received after the comment closing date 
will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent 
practicable. A final rule may be published at any time after close of 
the comment period.
    Please note that the proposed regulatory text that is presented 
below builds on, but is separate from, the regulatory text proposed in 
the FHWA's first Performance Measure NPRM published in the Federal 
Register. The regulatory text proposed in that first NPRM is included 
in the docket. Comments on that NPRM should be submitted in accordance 
with the instructions contained in that NPRM (docket number USDOT-2013-
0020). When the three Performance Management rulemakings are completed, 
the combined regulatory text from each of the three rules will 
represent the entirety of 23 CFR part 490.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule constitutes an 
economically significant regulatory action within the meaning of 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and within the meaning of the DOT 
regulatory policies and procedures. This action complies with E.O.s 
12866 and 13563. This action is considered ``economically significant'' 
because this rulemaking will result in the transformation of the 
Federal-aid highway program so that the program focuses on national 
goals, provides for a greater level of accountability and transparency, 
and provides a means for the most efficient investment of Federal 
transportation funds. The FHWA has filed into the docket a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (regulatory analysis or RIA) in support of the NPRM on 
National Performance Measures for Assessing Pavement and Bridge 
Conditions. The regulatory analysis estimates the economic impact, in 
terms of costs and benefits, on Federal, State, and local governments, 
as well as private entities regulated under this action, as required by 
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563, but does not currently attempt to directly 
quantify the changes from the improved decisionmaking. The economic 
impacts are measured on an incremental basis, relative to current 
pavement and bridge condition reporting practices.
    This section of the NPRM identifies the estimated costs and 
benefits resulting from the proposed rule in order to inform policy 
makers and the public of the relative value of the current proposal. 
The complete RIA may be accessed from the rulemaking's docket (docket 
number FHWA-2013-0053).
    The cornerstone of MAP-21's transformation of the highway program 
is the transition to a performance-based program. In accordance with 
the law, State DOTs would invest resources in projects to achieve 
performance targets that make progress toward national goals areas. The 
national performance goal area established for infrastructure condition 
is to maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of 
good repair. In order to carry out this mandate, MAP-21 requires FHWA 
to promulgate a rule to establish pavement and bridge condition 
performance measures and standards. As required by

[[Page 378]]

MAP-21, this NPRM identifies the following pavement and bridge 
performance measures for which State DOTs and MPOs must collect and 
report data, establish targets for performance, and make progress 
toward achievement of targets:
    1. Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good 
condition;
    2. Percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Poor 
condition;
    3. Percentage of lane-miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Good 
condition;
    4. Percentage of lane-miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor 
condition;
    5. Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition; and
    6. Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition.

Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule

    To estimate costs for the proposed rule, FHWA assessed the level of 
effort, expressed in labor hours and the labor categories, and capital 
needed to comply with each component of the proposed rule. Level of 
effort by labor category is monetized with loaded wage rates to 
estimate total costs.
    Table 7 displays the total cost of the proposed rule for the 10-
year study period (2015-2024). Total costs are estimated to be $196.4 
million undiscounted, $149.1 million discounted at 7 percent, and 
$173.2 million discounted at 3 percent. The costs in the table assume a 
portion of MPOs, approximately half of the estimated 420 MPOs, would 
establish their own targets and a portion would adopt State DOT 
targets. It is assumed that State DOTs and MPOs serving TMAs \84\ would 
use staff to establish performance targets and MPOs not serving a TMA 
would agree to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward 
the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT targets and would 
therefore not incur any incremental costs. There are currently an 
estimated 210 MPOs serving TMAs. The FHWA made this assumption because 
larger MPOs may have more resources available to develop performance 
targets. The FHWA believes that this is a conservative estimate as 
larger MPOs may elect not to establish their own targets for any 
variety of reasons, including resource availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ A TMA is an urbanized area having a population of over 
200,000 or otherwise requested by the Governor and the MPO and 
officially designated by FHWA or FTA. 23 U.S.C. 134(k).

                                    Table 7--Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             10-yr Total cost
                    Cost components                     --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Undiscounted            7%                 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 490.105-109--General Information, Target               $93,283,261        $64,861,869        $79,297,035
 Establishment, Reporting on Progress, and Making
 Significant Progress..................................
    Establish and Update Performance Targets...........         39,198,632         28,462,495         33,931,374
    Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving                 1,122,098            703,058            913,432
     Performance Targets...............................
    Reporting on Performance Targets Progress..........         52,962,531         35,696,316         44,452,229
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Interstate IRI,             30,712,622         23,081,249         26,984,444
 Rutting, and Faulting.................................
    Data Collection: IRI measurement in both directions         24,283,997         18,249,988         21,336,184
    Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting..            489,800            368,096            430,344
    Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting.            979,600            736,192            860,687
    Data processing costs: Additional IRI data.........          1,653,075          1,242,324          1,452,410
    Data processing costs: Additional rutting data.....          1,836,750          1,380,360          1,613,789
    Data processing costs: Additional faulting data....          1,469,400          1,104,288          1,291,031
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Interstate Cracking         15,225,866         11,872,243         13,587,510
    Fully Automated State DOTs: Additional Data Quality          1,224,500            920,240          1,075,859
     Control Costs.....................................
    Semi-Automated State DOTs: Additional Data                   4,006,853          3,011,243          3,520,464
     Processing & Quality Control Costs................
    Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting:                1,729,138          1,729,138          1,729,138
     Training costs to adopt automated methods.........
    Manual & State DOTs not currently collecting: Data           8,265,375          6,211,622          7,262,049
     quality control costs.............................
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Non-Interstate NHS           5,616,835          4,050,700          4,855,720
 IRI, Rutting, and Faulting............................
    Data Collection costs: Increase IRI Measurement to             395,566            285,271            341,965
     Cover 100 percent of non-interstate NHS miles.....
    Data processing costs: Additional rutting and                  636,740            459,199            550,458
     faulting data collected...........................
    Tracking costs: establish measurement for rutting..          2,546,960          1,836,795          2,201,832
    Tracking costs: establish measurement for faulting.          2,037,568          1,469,436          1,761,466
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Non-Interstate NHS           4,040,850          2,914,145          3,493,291
 Cracking..............................................
    Additional data quality control costs for new data           4,040,850          2,914,145          3,493,291
     collection........................................
Section 490.309--Data Requirements--Capital Costs......         16,600,000         15,891,841         16,254,041
    Profiler...........................................          9,100,000          8,391,841          8,754,041
    Faulting Software..................................          1,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    Cracking Video Equipment and Software Purchase.....          6,500,000          6,500,000          6,500,000
Section 490.313--Calculation of performance management           8,242,259          7,785,869          8,019,297
 measures..............................................
    Reprogramming of software to allow Performance               6,405,509          6,405,509          6,405,509
     Calculations......................................
    FHWA's Management of Data Submissions..............            244,900            184,048            215,172
    Filtering out Bridge Pavement from Pavement Data...          1,591,850          1,196,312          1,398,617
Section 490.319--Other Requirements....................         15,962,695         12,007,317         14,030,362
    Develop a Quality Management Program...............             44,194             44,194             44,194
    Run New Quality Management Program.................          3,061,250          2,300,601          2,689,648
    Improve Quality Management Program.................         12,857,251          9,662,522         11,296,520
Section 490.407--Calculation of bridge performance               6,759,061          6,671,211          6,716,144
 measures..............................................
    Update Software to generate good/fair/poor                   6,405,509          6,405,509          6,405,509
     condition.........................................
    FHWA's Management of Data Submissions..............            353,552            265,703            310,635
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 379]]

 
    Total Cost of Proposed Rule........................        196,443,449        149,136,445        173,237,846
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Break-Even Analysis

    Currently, State DOTs differ from State to State in the way they 
measure the condition of their pavement. We do not believe their 
current methods are inadequate, but the methods are inconsistent and 
these differences hinder accurate analysis of infrastructure conditions 
at the national level. The proposed rulemaking would establish uniform 
condition measures for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP to assess 
condition of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System), 
condition of pavements on the Interstate System, and condition of 
bridges on the NHS. In addition, the rule would establish processes 
that: (1) State DOTs and MPOs use to report measures and establish 
performance targets, and (2) FHWA uses to assess progress that State 
DOTs have made toward achieving targets.
    Upon implementation, FHWA expects that the proposed rule would 
result in certain benefits. Specifically, the proposed rule would allow 
for more informed decisionmaking on bridge and pavement condition-
related project, program, and policy choices. The proposed rule also 
would yield greater accountability because the MAP-21-mandated 
reporting would increase visibility and transparency. In addition, the 
proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway program on 
achieving balanced performance outcomes.
    These benefits resulting from the proposed rule (i.e., more 
informed decisionmaking, greater accountability, and greater focus on 
making progress toward the national goal for infrastructure condition) 
would lead to improved pavement and bridge conditions. The benefits 
resulting from performance measurement, while real and substantial, are 
difficult to monetize. For this proposed rule, FHWA quantified these 
benefits of the proposed rule by performing break-even analyses as 
described in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4. A break-even 
analysis calculates the threshold a specific variable must achieve in 
order for benefits to equal costs, holding every other variable in the 
analysis constant. For both pavements and bridges, FHWA focused its 
break-even analyses on VOCs savings because users typically garner the 
greatest concentration of benefits from transportation projects. The 
DOT estimated the number of road miles of deficient pavement that would 
have to be improved and the number of posted bridges that would have to 
be avoided in order for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs.
    Table 8 presents the results from the pavement break-even analysis. 
The results represent the savings in VOC to automobile and truck 
drivers from pavement conditions that are improved from Poor to Good. 
The analysis shows that the proposed rule would need to result in the 
net improvement of approximately 435 miles of pavement (i.e., to Good 
condition) per year, or 4,350 miles over 10 years, that would otherwise 
not have been improved without the proposed rule. The annual break-even 
point represents approximately 1.9 percent of the NHS miles currently 
estimated to be in poor condition. Based on recent trends in improving 
road condition, FHWA believes improving 435 miles of pavement per year 
or 4,350 miles over 10 years as a result of this rule is achievable. 
Using a related benchmark as a point of reference, between 2000 and 
2010, the percentage of VMT on NHS pavements with ``Good'' ride quality 
increased from 48 percent to 60 percent. On average, this is equivalent 
to a 1.2 percent increase in improved VMT per year.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration. 2013 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and 
Transit: Conditions & Performance Report to Congress. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/pdfs/littlebook.pdf.

                                       Table 8--Break-Even Improvement of Pavement Conditions (Improved From Poor)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Approximate
                                                            Annual improved    Annual poor VMT    Percent of poor   Current NHS miles    number of poor
                                                             from poor VMT       (total VMT *       VMT needing      estimated to be   NHS miles needing
                                                                 needed             4.9%)           improvement          in poor        improvement from
                                                                                                                        condition             poor
                                                                           a                  b          c = a / b                  d          e = c * d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance..............................................      7,398,564,204     79,778,275,896              9.24%             22,827              2,109
Fuel.....................................................      1,946,081,966     79,778,275,896              2.43%             22,827                555
Tires....................................................    175,596,118,543     79,778,275,896            219.25%             22,827             50,049
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................      1,527,395,633     79,778,275,896              1.91%             22,827                435
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis.

    Table 9 presents the results from the bridge break-even analysis 
which calculates the number of year-long bridge postings that would 
need to be reduced as a result of the proposed rule in order for the 
benefits of the bridge condition requirements to justify the costs. The 
FHWA estimated the average cost per year of a bridge posting (column E 
in Table 9). With the undiscounted cost of the bridge requirements and 
this average cost of a bridge posting, the analysis estimates the 
number of year-long bridge postings that need to be avoided in order to 
make

[[Page 380]]

the benefits of the proposed rule justify the cost. The break-even 
analysis estimates that 2 year-long bridge postings need to be avoided 
over 10 years in order for benefits to justify costs. As a basis for 
comparison, NBI data indicate that currently there are approximately 85 
NHS bridges posted for trucks. Over the 10 year period of 2003-2012 the 
number of NHS bridges posted for truck declined from 145 to 85. Trends 
in the United States demonstrated by bridge owners provide evidence 
that posted bridges receive priority consideration in work schedules. 
With the increased performance requirements of this rule, it is 
reasonable to assume that at a minimum, a reduction in the posted load 
limit of one bridge annually nationwide would be achieved to provide 
the needed benefit to justify the costs of complying with this rule.

                                                           Table 9--Break-Even Bridge Detours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average                                                Equivalent
                                                   Average    distance     Average                                  number of year-   Annual number of
 Undiscounted 10 year cost of  proposed bridge   truck user      per       cost of   Average cost per year of each    long posts    year-long posts that
                      rule                        cost per     detour    detour per          bridge posting          that need to    need to be avoided
                                                     VMT       (miles)     trucks                                     be avoided
a                                                        b           c   d = b x c     e = d * 1,940 ADT * 365.25       f = a / e      g = f / 10 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$53,400,692....................................      $1.69          20      $33.82                    $23,964,028               2                   0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please refer to the Summary Report for details on the methodology used in the analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on 
small entities and has determined that the action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The proposed rule affects State governments and MPOs. State DOTs are 
not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
601. The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, so the small 
entity standard for these entities is whether the affected MPOs serve 
less than 50,000 people. As discussed in the RIA, the proposed rule is 
expected to impose costs on MPOs that serve TMAs, which generally have 
populations exceeding 200,000. Further, MPOs serve urbanized areas with 
populations of more than 50,000. Therefore, the MPOs that incur 
economic impacts under this proposed rule do not meet the definition of 
a small entity.
    Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and I 
hereby certify that the proposed action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA has determined that this NPRM would not impose unfunded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $143.1 million or 
more in any one year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for 
either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector. The FHWA will publish a final analysis, including its 
response to public comments, when it publishes a final rule. 
Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which 
State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their 
participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the 
program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program 
permits this type of flexibility.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    The FHWA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this 
action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined 
that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental 
functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing E.O. 
12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each 
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through 
regulations. The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and 
has determined that this proposal contains collection of information 
requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
    This proposed rule provides definitions and outlines processes for 
bridge and pavement performance measures and reporting. Some burdens in 
this proposed rule would be realized in other reporting areas as 
described below. The PRA activities that are already covered by 
existing OMB Clearances have reference numbers for those clearances as 
follows: HPMS information collection, OMB No. 2125-0028 with an 
expiration of June 30, 2015; and National Bridge Inventory, OMB No. 
2125-0501 with an expiration date of December 31, 2014. Any increase in 
PRA burdens caused by MAP-21 in these areas will be addressed in PRA 
approval requests associated with those collections.
    This rulemaking requires the submittal of biennial performance 
reports. The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and has 
determined the following:
    Respondents: Approximately 262 applicants consisting of States and 
MPOs.
    Frequency: Biennially.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 416 hours to 
complete and submit the report.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Approximately 54,496 hours 
annually.
    The FHWA invites interested persons to submit comments on any 
aspect of the information collection. Comments submitted on the 
information collection proposed in this NPRM will be summarized or 
included, or both, in the request for OMB approval of this information 
collection.

[[Page 381]]

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the 
quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical 
exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which covers the promulgation of 
regulations.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action 
would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under E.O. 12630.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminates 
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA 
certifies that this action would not cause an environmental risk to 
health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O.13175, dated November 
6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking 
addresses obligations of Federal funds to States for Federal-aid 
highway projects and would not impose any direct compliance 
requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary 
impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

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

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

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

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
April and October of each year. The regulation identification number 
contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-
reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490

    Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2014, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Acting Administrator, FHWA Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR 
part 490, as proposed to be added at 79 FR 13846, March 11, 2014, as 
follows:

PART 490--NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 490 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i), and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.

0
2. Revise subpart A to read as follows:

Subpart A--General Information

Sec.
490.101 Definitions
490.103 Data Requirements
490.105 Establishment of Performance Targets
490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets
490.109 Assessing Significant Progress toward Achieving the 
Performance Targets for the National Highway Performance Program
490.111 Incorporation by reference


Sec.  490.101  Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply to the 
entire part 490:
    Full Extent means continuous collection and evaluation of pavement 
condition data over the entire length of the roadway.
    Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) is a national level 
highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition, 
performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's 
highways.
    Mainline highways means the through travel lanes of any highway. 
Mainline highways specifically exclude ramps, shoulders, turn lanes, 
crossovers, rest areas, and other pavement surfaces that are not part 
of the roadway normally travelled by through traffic.
    Measure means an expression based on a metric that is used to 
establish targets and to assess progress toward achieving the 
established targets (e.g., a measure for flight on-time performance is 
percent of flights that arrive on time, and a corresponding metric is 
an arithmetic difference between scheduled and actual arrival time for 
each flight).
    Metric means a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition.
    National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is an FHWA database containing 
bridge information and inspection data for all highway bridges on 
public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally owned 
and federally owned bridges, that are subject to the National Bridge 
Inspection Standards (NBIS).
    Non-Urbanized Area means any geographic area that is not an 
``urbanized area'' under either 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34).
    Performance period means a determined time period during which 
condition/performance is measured and evaluated to: (1) Assess 
condition/performance with respect to baseline condition/performance; 
and (2) track progress toward the achievement of the targets that 
represent the intended condition/performance level at the midpoint and 
at the end of that time period. The term ``performance period'' applies 
to all proposed measures in this Part, except the measures proposed for 
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in Subpart B. Each 
performance period covers a 4-year duration beginning on a specified 
date (provided in Sec.  490.105).
    Target means a quantifiable level of performance or condition, 
expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time 
period required by FHWA.

[[Page 382]]

Sec.  490.103  Data requirements.

    (a) In general. Unless otherwise noted below, the data requirements 
in this section applies to the measures identified in Subparts B-C. 
Additional data requirements for specific performance management 
measures are identified in 23 CFRs--
    (1) 490.309 for the condition of pavements on the Interstate 
System;
    (2) 490.309 for the condition of pavements on the non-Interstate 
NHS;
    (3) 490.409 for the condition of bridges on the NHS;
    (4) [Reserved].
    (b) Urbanized area data. The State DOTs shall submit urbanized area 
data, including boundaries of urbanized areas, in accordance with the 
HPMS Field Manual for the purpose of the additional targets for 
urbanized and non-urbanized areas in Sec.  490.105(e) and IRI rating 
determination in Sec.  490.313(b)(1). The boundaries of urbanized areas 
shall be identified based on the most recent U.S. Decennial Census, 
unless FHWA approves adjustments to the urbanized area as provided by 
23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34), and these adjustments are submitted to HPMS, 
available at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period 
Report is due to FHWA.
    (c) [Reserved].
    (d) National Highway System data. The State DOTs shall document and 
submit the extent of the NHS in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual.


Sec.  490.105  Establishment of performance targets.

    (a) In general. State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) 
shall establish performance targets for all measures specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section for respective target scope identified in 
paragraph (d) with the requirements specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section, and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) shall 
establish performance targets for all measures specified in paragraph 
(c) for respective target scope identified in paragraph (d) of this 
section with the requirements specified in paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (b) Highway Safety Improvement Program measures. State DOTs and 
MPOs shall establish performance targets for the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program (HSIP) measures in accordance with Sec.  490.209.
    (c) Applicable measures. State DOTs and MPOs that include, within 
their respective geographic boundaries, any portion of the applicable 
transportation network shall establish performance targets for the 
performance measures identified in 23 CFRs--
    (1) 490.307(a)(1) and (2) for the condition of pavements on the 
Interstate System;
    (2) 490.307(a)(3) and (4) for the condition of pavements on the 
National Highway System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate); and
    (3) 490.407(c)(1) and (2) for the condition of bridges on the NHS.
    (d) Target scope. Targets established by the State DOT and MPO 
shall, regardless of ownership, represent the transportation network, 
including bridges that cross State borders, that are applicable to the 
measures as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2).
    (1) State DOTs and MPOs shall establish Statewide and metropolitan 
planning areawide targets, respectively, that represent the condition/
performance of the transportation network that is applicable to the 
measure, as specified in 23 CFR--
    (i) 490.303 for the condition of pavements on the Interstate 
System;
    (ii) 490.303 for the condition of pavements on the non-Interstate 
NHS; and
    (iii) 490.403 for the condition of bridges on the NHS.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (3) For the purpose of target establishment in this section, 
reporting targets and progress evaluation in Sec.  490.107 and 
significant progress determination in Sec.  490.109, State DOTs shall 
declare and describe the NHS limits and urbanized area boundaries 
within the State boundary in the Baseline Performance Period Report 
required by Sec.  490.107(b)(1). Any changes in NHS limits or urbanized 
area boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for 
until the following performance period.
    (e) State DOT target setting. State DOTs shall establish targets 
for each of the performance measures identified in paragraph (c) of 
this section for respective target scope identified in paragraph (d) of 
this section as follows:
    (1) Schedule. State DOTs shall establish targets not later than 1 
year of the effective date of this rule and for each performance period 
thereafter, in a manner that allows for the time needed to meet the 
requirements specified in this section and so that the final targets 
are submitted to FHWA by the due date provided in Sec.  490.107(b).
    (2) Coordination. State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs on 
the selection of targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    (3) Additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. In 
addition to statewide targets, described in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, State DOTs may, as appropriate, for each statewide target 
establish additional targets for portions of the State.
    (i) A State DOT shall declare and describe in the Baseline 
Performance Period Report required by Sec.  490.107(b)(1) the 
boundaries used to establish each additional target. Any changes in 
boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for until 
the following performance period.
    (ii) State DOTs may select any number and combination of urbanized 
area boundaries and may also select a non-urbanized area boundary for 
the establishment of additional targets.
    (iii) The boundaries used by the State DOT for additional targets 
shall be contained within the geographic boundary of the State and 
available to the FHWA.
    (iv) State DOTs shall evaluate separately the progress of each 
additional target and report that progress as required under Sec.  
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B).
    (4) Time horizon for targets. State DOTs shall establish targets 
for a performance period as follows:
    (i) The performance period will begin on:
    (A) January 1 of the year in which the Baseline Performance Period 
Report is due to FHWA and will extend for a duration of 4 years for the 
measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section; and
    (B) [Reserved].
    (ii) The midpoint of a performance period will occur 2 years after 
the beginning of a performance period described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) 
of this section.
    (iii) State DOTs shall establish 2-year targets that reflect the 
anticipated condition/performance level at the midpoint of each 
performance period.
    (iv) State DOTs shall establish 4-year targets that reflect the 
anticipated condition/performance level at the end of each performance 
period.
    (5) Reporting. State DOTs shall report 2-year targets, 4-year 
targets, the basis for each established target, progress made toward 
the achievement of targets, and other requirements to FHWA in 
accordance with Sec.  490.107, and the State DOTs shall provide 
relevant MPO(s) targets to FHWA, upon request, each time the relevant 
MPOs establish or adjust MPO targets, as described in paragraph (f) of 
this section.
    (6) Target adjustment. State DOTs may adjust an established 4-year 
target

[[Page 383]]

in the Mid Performance Period Progress Report, as described in Sec.  
490.107(b)(2).
    (7) Phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement 
condition measures. The following requirements apply only to the first 
performance period and the measures in Sec.  490.307(a)(1) and (2):
    (i) State DOTs shall establish their 4-year targets, required under 
paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section, and report these targets in their 
Baseline Performance Period Report, required under Sec.  490.107(b)(1);
    (ii) State DOTs shall not report 2-year targets, described in 
paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section, and baseline condition/
performance in their Baseline Performance Period Report; and
    (iii) State DOTs shall update the baseline condition/performance in 
their Baseline Performance Period Report, with the 2-year condition/
performance in their Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described 
in Sec.  490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). State DOTs may also adjust their 4-year 
targets, as appropriate.
    (f) MPO target setting. The MPOs shall establish targets for each 
of the performance measures identified in paragraph (c) of this section 
for respective target scope identified in paragraph (d) of this section 
as follows:
    (1) Schedule. The MPOs shall establish targets no later than 180 
days after the respective State DOT(s) establishes their targets, 
described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (i) The MPOs shall establish 4-year targets, described in paragraph 
(e)(4)(iv) of this section, for all applicable measures, described in 
paragraphs (c)-(d) of this section.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (2) Coordination. The MPOs shall coordinate with relevant State 
DOT(s) on the selection of targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    (3) Time horizon for targets. The MPOs shall establish 4-year 
targets that reflect the anticipated condition/performance level at the 
end of each performance period, described in paragraph (e)(4) of this 
section. The MPOs are not required to establish 2-year targets.
    (4) Target establishment options. The MPOs shall establish targets 
by either:
    (i) Agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute 
toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT targets; or
    (ii) Committing to quantifiable targets for their metropolitan 
planning area.
    (5) [Reserved].
    (6) [Reserved].
    (7) MPO response to State DOT target adjustment. If the State DOT 
adjusts a 4-year target in the State DOT's Mid Performance Period 
Progress Report and if, for this respective target, the MPO established 
a target by supporting the State DOT target as allowed under paragraph 
(f)(4)(i) of this section, then the MPO shall, within 180 days, report 
to the State DOT whether they will either:
    (i) Agree to plan a program of projects so that they contribute to 
the adjusted State DOT target; or
    (ii) Commit to a new quantifiable target for its metropolitan 
planning area.
    (8) Target adjustment.-- If the MPO establishes its target by 
committing to a quantifiable target, described in paragraph (f)(4)(ii) 
of this section, then the MPOs may adjust its target(s) in a manner 
that is agreed upon and documented in the metropolitan planning 
agreement in accordance with part 450 of this chapter.
    (9) Reporting.--The MPOs shall report targets and progress toward 
the achievement of their targets as specified in Sec.  490.107(c). 
After the MPOs establish or adjust their targets, the relevant State 
DOT(s) must be able to provide these targets to FHWA, upon request.


Sec.  490.107  Reporting on performance targets.

    (a) In general. All State DOTs and MPOs shall report the 
information specified in this section for the targets required in Sec.  
490.105.
    (1) All State DOTs and MPOs shall report in accordance with the 
schedule and content requirements under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section, respectively.
    (2) For the measures identified in Sec.  490.207(a), all State DOTs 
and MPO shall report on performance in accordance with Sec.  490.213.
    (3) State DOTs shall report using an electronic template provided 
by FHWA.
    (b) State Biennial Performance Report. State DOTs shall report to 
FHWA baseline condition/performance at the beginning of a performance 
period and progress achievement at both the midpoint and end of a 
performance period. State DOTs shall report at an ongoing 2-year 
frequency as specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Baseline Performance Period Report-- (i) Schedule. State DOTs 
shall submit a Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1 
of the first year in a performance period. State DOTs shall submit 
their first Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1, 
2016, and subsequent Baseline Performance Period Reports to FHWA by 
October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
    (ii) Content. The State DOT shall report the following information 
in each Baseline Performance Period Report:
    (A) Targets. Two-year and 4-year targets for the performance 
period, as required in Sec.  490.105(e), and a discussion, to the 
maximum extent practicable, of the basis for each established target;
    (B) Baseline condition/performance, Baseline condition/performance 
derived from the latest data collected through the begin date of the 
performance period specified in Sec.  490.105(e)(4) for each target, 
required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
    (C) Relationship with other performance expectations. A discussion, 
to the maximum extent practicable, on how the established targets in 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section support expectations documented 
in longer range plans, such as the State asset management plan required 
by 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and the long-range statewide transportation plan 
provided in part 450 of this chapter;
    (D) Urbanized area boundaries and population data for targets. For 
the purpose of determining target scope in Sec.  490.105(d), 
determining IRI rating in Sec.  490.313(b)(1), and establishing 
additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas in Sec.  
490.105(e)(3), State DOTs shall document the boundary extent for all 
applicable urbanized areas and the latest Decennial Census population 
data, based on information in HPMS;
    (E) NHS limits for targets. For the purpose of determining target 
scope in Sec.  490.105(d), State DOTs shall document the extent of the 
NHS, based on information in the HPMS.
    (2) Mid Performance Period Progress Report--(i) Schedule.--State 
DOTs shall submit a Mid Performance Period Progress Report to FHWA by 
October 1 of the third year in a performance period. State DOTs shall 
submit their first Mid Performance Period Progress Report to FHWA by 
October 1, 2018, and subsequent Mid Performance Period Progress Reports 
to FHWA by October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
    (ii) Content. The State DOT shall report the following information 
in each Mid Performance Period Progress Report:
    (A) Two-year condition/performance. The actual condition/
performance derived from the latest data collected through the midpoint 
of the performance period, specified in Sec.  490.105(e)(4), for each 
State DOT

[[Page 384]]

reported target required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
    (B) Two-year progress in achieving performance targets. A 
discussion of the State DOT's progress toward achieving each 
established 2-year target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. 
The State DOT shall compare the actual 2-year condition/performance in 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, within the boundaries and 
limits documented in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E) of this section, 
with the respective 2-year target and document in the discussion any 
reasons for differences in the actual and target values;
    (C) Investment strategy discussion. A discussion on the 
effectiveness of the investment strategies developed and documented in 
the State asset management plan for the NHS required under 23 U.S.C. 
119(e);
    (D) [Reserved];
    (E) Target adjustment discussion. When applicable, a State DOT may 
submit an adjusted 4-year target to replace an established 4-year 
target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. If the State DOT 
adjusts its target, it shall include a discussion on the basis for the 
adjustment and how the adjusted target supports expectations documented 
in longer range plans, such as the State asset management plan and the 
long-range statewide transportation plan. The State DOT may only adjust 
a 4-year target at the midpoint and by reporting the change in the Mid 
Performance Period Progress Report.
    (F) Two-year significant progress discussion for the National 
Highway Performance Program (NHPP) targets. State DOTs shall discuss 
the progress they have made toward the achievement of all 2-year 
targets established for the NHPP measures in Sec.  490.105(c)(1) 
through (3). This discussion should document a summary of prior 
accomplishments and planned activities that will be conducted during 
the remainder of the Performance Period to make significant progress 
toward that achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP measures;
    (G) Extenuating Circumstances discussion on NHPP 2-year targets. 
When applicable, a State DOT may include a discussion on the 
extenuating circumstance(s), described in Sec.  490.109(e)(5), beyond 
the State DOT's control that prevented the State DOT from making 2-year 
significant progress toward achieving NHPP target(s) in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii)(F) of this section; and
    (H) NHPP Target Achievement Discussion. If FHWA determines that a 
State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement of 
NHPP targets in two consecutive biennial FHWA determinations, then the 
State DOT shall include a description of the actions they will 
undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required under Sec.  
490.109(f). If FHWA determines under Sec.  490.109(e) that the State 
DOT has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does not need 
to include this description.
    (3) Full Performance Period Progress Report--(i) Schedule.--State 
DOTs shall submit a progress report on the full performance period to 
FHWA by October 1 of the first year following the reference performance 
period. State DOTs shall submit their first Full Performance Period 
Progress Report to FHWA by October 1, 2020, and subsequent Full 
Performance Period Progress Reports to FHWA by October 1 every 4 years 
thereafter.
    (ii) Content. The State DOT shall report the following information 
for each Full Performance Period Progress Report:
    (A) Four-year condition/performance. The actual condition/
performance derived from the latest data collected through the end of 
the Performance Period, specified in Sec.  490.105(e)(4), for each 
State DOT reported target required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this 
section;
    (B) Four-year progress in achieving performance targets. A 
discussion of State DOT's progress made toward achieving each 
established 4-year target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (E) of this 
section, when applicable. The State DOT shall compare the actual 4-year 
condition/performance in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, 
within the boundaries and limits documented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) 
and (E) of this section, with the respective 4-year target and document 
in the discussion any reasons for differences in the actual and target 
values;
    (C) Investment strategy discussion. A discussion on the 
effectiveness of the investment strategies developed and documented in 
the State asset management plan for the NHS required under 23 U.S.C. 
119(e);
    (D) [Reserved];
    (E) Four-year significant progress evaluation for NHPP targets.--
State DOTs shall discuss the progress they have made toward the 
achievement of all 4-year targets established for the NHPP measures in 
Sec.  490.105(c)(1) through (3). This discussion shall include a 
summary of accomplishments achieved during the Performance Period to 
demonstrate whether the State DOT has made significant progress toward 
achievement of 4-year targets for NHPP measures.
    (F) Extenuating circumstances discussion on NHPP targets. When 
applicable, a State DOT may include discussion on the extenuating 
circumstance(s), described in Sec.  490.109(e)(5), beyond the State 
DOT's control that prevented the State DOT from making a 4-year 
significant progress toward achieving NHPP targets, described in 
paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E) of this section; and
    (G) NHPP target achievement discussion. If FHWA determines that a 
State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement of 
NHPP targets in two consecutive biennial FHWA determinations, then the 
State DOT shall include a description of the actions they will 
undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required under Sec.  
490.109(f). If FHWA determines in Sec.  490.109(e) that the State DOT 
has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to 
include this description.
    (c) MPO report. MPOs shall establish targets in accordance with 
Sec.  490.105 and report targets and progress toward the achievement of 
their targets in a manner that is consistent with the following:
    (1) The MPOs shall report their established targets to their 
respective State DOT in a manner that is agreed upon by both parties 
and documented in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement in accordance 
with part 450 of this chapter.
    (2) The MPOs shall report baseline condition/performance and 
progress toward the achievement of their targets in the system 
performance report in the metropolitan transportation plan in 
accordance with part 450 of this chapter.


Sec.  490.109  Assessing significant progress toward achieving the 
performance targets for the National Highway Performance Program.

    (a) In general. The FHWA will assess each of the State DOT targets 
separately for the NHPP measures specified in Sec.  490.105(c)(1) 
through (3) to determine the significant progress made toward the 
achievement of those targets.
    (b) Frequency. The FHWA will determine whether a State DOT has or 
has not made significant progress toward the achievement of NHPP 
targets as described in paragraph (e) of this section at the midpoint 
and the end of each performance period.
    (c) Schedule. The FHWA will determine significant progress toward 
the achievement of a State DOT's NHPP targets after the State DOT 
submits the Mid Performance Period Progress Report

[[Page 385]]

for progress toward the achievement of 2-year targets, and again after 
the State DOT submits the Full Performance Period Progress Report for 
progress toward the achievement of 4-year targets. The FHWA will notify 
State DOTs of the outcome of the determination of the State DOT's 
ability to make significant progress toward the achievement of its NHPP 
targets.
    (d) Source of data/information. The FHWA will use the following 
sources of information to assess NHPP condition and performance 
progress:
    (1) Data contained within the HPMS on June 15 of the year in which 
the significant progress determination is made that represents 
conditions from the prior year for targets established for Interstate 
System pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec.  
490.105(c)(1);
    (2) Data contained within the HPMS on August 15 of the year in 
which the significant progress determination is made that represents 
conditions from the prior year for targets established for non-
Interstate NHS pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec.  
490.105(c)(2);
    (3) The most recently available data contained within the NBI as of 
June 15 of the year in which the significant progress determination is 
made for targets established for NHS bridge condition measures, as 
specified in Sec.  490.105(c)(3); and
    (4) The urbanized area boundary and NHS limit data in the HPMS as 
documented in the Baseline Period Performance Report specified in Sec.  
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E).
    (e) Significant progress determination for individual NHPP 
targets--(1) In general. The FHWA will biennially assess whether the 
State DOT has achieved or made significant progress towards each target 
established by the State DOT for the NHPP measures described in Sec.  
490.105(c)(1) and (3). The FHWA will assess the significant progress of 
each statewide target separately using the condition/performance data/
information sources described in paragraph (d) of this section. The 
FHWA will not assess the progress achieved for any additional targets a 
State DOT may establish under Sec.  490.105(e)(3).
    (2) Significant Progress toward individual NHPP Targets. The FHWA 
will determine that a State DOT has made significant progress toward 
the achievement of each 2-year or 4-year NHPP target if either:
    (i) The actual condition/performance level is better than the 
baseline condition/performance reported in the State DOT Baseline 
Performance Period Report; or
    (ii) The actual condition/performance level is equal to or better 
than the established target.
    (3) Phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement 
condition measures. The following requirements shall only apply to the 
first performance period and the Interstate System pavement condition 
targets, described in Sec.  490.105(e)(7):
    (i) At the midpoint of the first performance period, FHWA will not 
make a determination of significant progress toward the achievement of 
2-year targets for Interstate System pavement condition measures.
    (ii) The FHWA will classify the assessment of progress toward the 
achievement of targets in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section as 
``progress not determined'' so that they will be excluded from the 
requirement under paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (4) Insufficient data and/or information. If a State DOT does not 
provide sufficient data and/or information, required under paragraph 
(d) of this section and Sec.  490.107, necessary for FHWA to make 
significant progress determination for each NHPP target, FHWA will 
determine that the State DOT has not made significant progress toward 
the achievement of the applicable NHPP target(s).
    (5) Extenuating circumstances. The FHWA will consider extenuating 
circumstances documented by the State DOT in the assessment of progress 
toward the achievement of NHPP targets in the relevant State Biennial 
Performance Report, provided in Sec.  490.107.
    (i) The FHWA will classify the assessment of progress toward the 
achievement of an individual 2-year or 4-year target as ``progress not 
determined'' if the State DOT has provided an explanation of the 
extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the State DOT that 
prevented it from making significant progress toward the achievement of 
a 2-year or 4-year target and the State DOT has quantified the impacts 
on the condition/performance that resulted from the circumstances, 
which include:
    (A) Natural or man-made disasters that caused delay in NHPP project 
delivery, extenuating delay in data collection, and/or damage/loss of 
data system;
    (B) Sudden discontinuation of Federal Government furnished data due 
to natural and man-made disasters or lack of funding; and/or
    (C) New law and/or regulation directing State DOTs to change metric 
and/or measure calculation.
    (ii) If the State DOT's explanation, described in paragraph 
(e)(5)(i) of this section, is accepted by FHWA, FHWA will classify the 
progress towards achieving the relevant NHPP target(s) as ``progress 
not determined,'' and those targets will be excluded from the 
requirement in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (f) Performance achievement. If FHWA determines that a State DOT 
has not made significant progress towards the achievement of NHPP 
targets in two consecutive FHWA determinations, then the State DOT 
shall include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description of 
the actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve the targets related 
to the measure in which significant progress was not achieved as 
follows:
    (1) If significant progress is not made for either target 
established for the Interstate System pavement condition measures, 
Sec.  490.307(a)(1) and (2), then the State DOT shall document the 
actions they will take to improve Interstate Pavement conditions;
    (2) If significant progress is not made for either target 
established for the Non-Interstate System pavement condition measures, 
Sec.  490.307(a)(3) and (4), then the State DOT shall document the 
actions they will take to improve Non-Interstate Pavement conditions.
    (3) If significant progress is not made for either target 
established for the NHS bridge condition measures, Sec.  490.407(c)(1) 
and (2), then the State DOT shall document the actions they will take 
to improve NHS bridge conditions.
    (4) [Reserved].
    (5) [Reserved].
    (6) The State DOT should, within 6 months of the significant 
progress determination and in a format that can be made available to 
FHWA, document the information specified in this paragraph to ensure 
actions are being taken to improve progress.
    (7) [Reserved].


Sec.  490.111  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that 
specified in this section, FHWA must publish a notice of change in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Highway 
Administration, Office of Highway

[[Page 386]]

Policy Information (202-366-4631) and is available from the sources 
listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) The Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, www.fhwa.dot.gov.
    (1) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, IBR 
approved for subpart A though C.
    (2) Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, Report No. FHWA-PD-96-001, December 
1995 and errata, IBR approved for subpart D.
    (c) The American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 
20001, (202) 624-5800, www.transportation.org.
    (1) AASHTO Standard M328-14, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 
AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (2) AASHTO Standard R57-14, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling Systems, 2014, 34th/2014 
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (3) AASHTO Standard R55-10 (2013), Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surface, 2014, 
34th/2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (4) AASHTO Standard PP67-14, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from 
Collected Images Utilizing Automated Methods, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, 
AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (5) AASHTO Standard PP68-14, Standard Specification for Collecting 
Images of Pavement Surfaces for Distress Detection, 2014, 34th/2014 
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (6) AASHTO Standard R48-10 (2003), Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Determining Rut Depth in Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014 
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (7) AASHTO Standard PP69-14, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross 
Slope from Collected Transverse Profiles, 2013, 2014, 34th/2014 
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (8) AASHTO Standard PP70-14, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Collection the Transverse Pavement Profile, 2014, 34th/
2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (9) AASHTO Standard R36-13, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014 
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
    (10) AASHTO Standard R43-13, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Practice for Quantifying Roughness of Pavement, 2014, 34th/2014 
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for subpart C.
0
4. Add subpart C to read as follows:
Subpart C--National Performance Management Measures for the Assessing 
Pavement Condition
Sec.
490.301 Purpose.
490.303 Applicability.
490.305 Definitions.
490.307 National Performance Management Measures for Assessing 
Pavement Condition.
490.309 Data requirements.
490.311 Calculation of Pavement Metrics.
490.313 Calculation of Performance Management Measures.
490.315 Establishment of minimum level for condition of Pavements.
490.317 Penalties for not maintaining minimum Interstate System 
pavement condition.
490.319 Other requirements.

Subpart C--National Performance Management Measures for the 
Assessing Pavement Condition


Sec.  490.301  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to implement the following statutory 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3) to:
    (a) Establish measures for States and MPOs to assess the condition 
of pavements on the Interstate System;
    (b) Establish measures for States and MPOs to assess the condition 
of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate);
    (c) Establish minimum levels for pavement condition on the 
Interstate System, only for purposes of carrying out 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(1);
    (d) Establish data elements that are necessary to collect and 
maintain standardized data to carry out a performance-based approach; 
and
    (e) Consider regional differences in establishing the minimum 
levels for pavement conditions on the Interstate System.


Sec.  490.303  Applicability.

    The performance measures in this subpart are applicable to the 
mainline highways on the Interstate System and on the non-Interstate 
NHS.


Sec.  490.305  Definitions.

    The following definitions are only applicable to this subpart, 
unless otherwise provided:
    Asphalt pavements means pavements where the top-most surface is 
constructed with asphalt materials. These pavements are coded in the 
HPMS as having any one of the following Surface Types:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Code                             Surface_type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................  Bituminous.
6...............................  Asphalt-Concrete (AC) Overlay over
                                   Existing AC Pavement.
7...............................  AC Overlay over Existing Jointed
                                   Concrete Pavement.
8...............................  AC (Bituminous Overlay over Existing
                                   CRCP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements (CRCP) means pavements 
where the top-most surface is constructed of reinforced Portland cement 
concrete with no joints. These pavements are coded in the HPMS as 
having the following Surface Type:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Code                             Surface_type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................  CRCP--Continuously Reinforced Concrete
                                   Pavement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cracking means an unintentional break in the continuous surface of 
a pavement. Cracking percent means the percentage of pavement surface 
exhibiting cracking as follows:
    (1) For Asphalt pavements, Cracking_Percent is the percentage of 
the area of the pavement section, exhibiting visible cracking.

[[Page 387]]

    (2) For Jointed Concrete Pavements, Cracking_Percent is the 
percentage of concrete slabs exhibiting cracking;
    (3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent is the percentage of pavement 
surface with longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts, spalling or other 
visible defects.
    Faulting means a vertical misalignment of pavement joints in 
Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.
    International Roughness Index (IRI) means a statistic used to 
estimate the amount of roughness in a measured longitudinal profile. 
The IRI is computed from a single longitudinal profile using a quarter-
car simulation, as described in the report: ``On the Calculation of IRI 
from Longitudinal Road Profile'' (Sayers, M.W., Transportation Research 
Board 1501, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC 1995).
    Jointed concrete pavements means pavements where the top-most 
surface is constructed of Portland cement concrete with joints. It may 
be constructed of either reinforced or unreinforced (plain) concrete. 
It is coded in the HPMS as having any one of the following Surface 
Types:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Code                             Surface_type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................  Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement.
4...............................  Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement.
9...............................  Unbonded Jointed Concrete Overlay on
                                   PCC Pavement.
10..............................  Bonded PCC Overlay on PCC Pavement.
11..............................  Other (includes ``whitetopping'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pavement means any hard surfaced travel lanes of any highway.
    Pavement Surface Rating (PSR) means an observation based system 
formerly used to rate pavements. It is not to be used to measure or 
rate NHS pavement conditions.
    Punchout means a distress specific to CRCP described as the area 
between two closely spaced transverse cracks and between a short 
longitudinal crack and the edge of the pavement (or a longitudinal 
joint) that is breaking up, spalling, or faulting.
    Rutting means longitudinal surface depressions in the pavement 
derived from measurements of a profile transverse to the path of travel 
on a highway lane. It may have associated transverse displacement.
    Sampling as applied to pavements, means measuring pavement 
conditions on a short section of pavement as a statistical 
representation for the entire section. Sampling is not to be used to 
measure or rate non-Interstate NHS pavement conditions after January 1, 
2018. Sampling is not permitted on the Interstate System.


Sec.  490.307  National performance management measures for assessing 
pavement condition.

    (a) To carry out the NHPP, the performance measures for States to 
assess pavement condition are:
    (1) Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good 
condition;
    (2) Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Poor 
condition;
    (3) Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good 
condition; and
    (4) Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor 
condition.
    (b) State DOTs will collect data using the methods described in 
Sec.  490.309 and will process this data to calculate individual 
pavement metrics for each section of pavement that will be reported to 
FHWA as described in Sec.  490.311. State DOTs and FHWA will use the 
reported pavement metrics to compute an overall performance of Good, 
Fair, or Poor, for each section of pavement as described in Sec.  
490.313.


Sec.  490.309  Data requirements.

    (a) The performance measures identified in Sec.  490.307 are to be 
computed using methods in Sec.  490.313 from the four condition metrics 
and three inventory data elements contained within the HPMS that shall 
be collected and reported following the HPMS Field Manual, which is 
incorporated by reference into this subpart (see Sec.  490.111). The 
four condition metrics include: IRI, rutting, faulting, and 
Cracking_Percent. The three data elements include: Through Lanes, 
Surface Type, and Structure Type.
    (b) State DOTs shall collect data in accordance with the following 
relevant HPMS requirements to report IRI, rutting (asphalt pavements), 
faulting (jointed concrete pavements), and Cracking Percent.
    (1) For the Interstate System the following shall apply for all the 
pavement condition metrics:
    (i) State DOTs shall collect data--
    (A) From the full extent of the mainline highway;
    (B) In the rightmost travel lane or one consistent lane for all 
data if the rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
    (C) Continuously collected in a manner that will allow for 
reporting in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter 
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a 
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not 
achievable; sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
    (D) In both directions of travel; and
    (E) On an annual frequency.
    (ii) Estimating conditions from data samples of the full extent of 
the mainline highway is not permitted.
    (iii) Pavement condition data shall be collected separately for 
each direction of the Interstate System. Averaging across directions is 
not permitted.
    (2) For the non-Interstate NHS the following shall apply:
    (i) For the IRI metric, State DOTs shall collect and report data:
    (A) From the full extent of the mainline highway;
    (B) In the rightmost travel lane or one consistent lane for all 
data if the rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
    (C) Continuously collected in a manner that will allow for 
reporting in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter 
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a 
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not 
achievable; sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
    (D) In one direction of travel; and
    (E) On a biennial frequency.
    (F) Estimating conditions from data samples of the full extent of 
the mainline will not be permitted.
    (ii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting and faulting metrics, data 
collected prior to the data collection cycle ending December 31, 2019, 
shall be collected:
    (A) Using sampling methods outlined in the HPMS Field Manual 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  490.111); and
    (B) On at least a biennial frequency.
    (iii) For the Cracking Percent, rutting and faulting metrics, data 
collected beginning with the data collection cycle ending December 31, 
2019, shall be in accordance with the following:
    (A) On the full extent (no sampling) of the mainline highway;
    (B) In the rightmost travel lane or one consistent lane for all 
data if the rightmost travel lane is not accessible;
    (C) Continuously collected in a manner that will allow for 
reporting in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter 
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a 
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not 
achievable; sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
    (D) In one direction of travel; and
    (E) On at least a biennial frequency.
    (F) Estimating conditions from data samples of the full extent of 
the mainline highway will not be permitted.
    (3) Data collection methods for each of the condition metrics shall 
conform to the following:
    (i) The device to collect data needed to calculate the IRI metric 
shall be in

[[Page 388]]

accordance with American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) Standard M328-14, Standard Specification for 
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard 
Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  490.111).
    (ii) The method to collect data needed to calculate the IRI metric 
shall be in accordance with AASHTO Standard R57-14, Standard 
Specification for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and 
Testing, Standard Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling Systems 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  490.111).
    (iii) The method to collect data needed to determine the 
Cracking_Percent metric for all pavement types except CRCP shall be 
either:
    (A) Manual, in accordance with AASHTO Standard R55-10 (2013), 
Standard Specification for Transportation Materials and Methods of 
Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for Quantifying Cracks in 
Asphalt Pavement Surface (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
490.111); or
    (B) Automated, in accordance with AASHTO Standards PP67-14, 
Standard Specification for Transportation Materials and Methods of 
Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for Quantifying Cracks in 
Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from Collected Images Utilizing Automated 
Methods (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  490.111), and PP68-14, 
Standard Specification for Collecting Images of Pavement Surfaces for 
Distress Detection (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  490.111).
    (iv) For CRCP the method to collect the data needed to determine 
the Cracking_Percent metric is described in the HPMS Field Manual 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  490.111) and includes 
longitudinal cracking and/or punchouts, spalling, or other visible 
defects.
    (v) For Asphalt Pavements, the method to collect data needed to 
determine the rutting metric shall either be:
    (A) A 5-Point Collection of Rutting Data method in accordance with 
AASHTO Standard R48-10, Standard Specification for Transportation 
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for 
Determining Rut Depth in Pavements (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  490.111); or
    (B) An Automated Transverse Profile Data method in accordance with 
AASHTO Standards PP69-14, Standard Specification for Transportation 
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for 
Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross Slope from 
Collected Transverse Profiles (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
490.111), and PP70-14, Standard Specification for Transportation 
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for 
Collection the Transverse Pavement Profile (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  490.111).
    (vi) For Jointed Concrete Pavements, the method to collect data 
needed to determine the faulting metric shall be in accordance with 
AASHTO Standard R36-13, Standard Specification for Transportation 
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for 
Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  490.111).
    (c) State DOTs shall collect data in accordance with the following 
relevant HPMS requirements to report Through Lanes, Surface Type, and 
Structure Type.
    (1) State DOTs shall collect data:
    (i) For the full extent of the mainline highway of the NHS;
    (ii) In both directions of travel for the Interstate System and in 
one direction of travel for the non-Interstate NHS; and
    (iii) On at least a biennial frequency.
    (2) Estimating data elements from samples of the full extent of the 
mainline highway is not permitted, except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.


Sec.  490.311  Calculation of pavement metrics.

    (a) The condition metrics and data elements needed to calculate the 
pavement performance measures shall be calculated in accordance with 
the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  490.111), 
except as noted below.
    (b) State DOTs shall calculate metrics in accordance with the 
following relevant HPMS requirements.
    (1) For all pavements, the IRI metric:
    (i) Shall be computed from pavement profile data in accordance with 
AASHTO Standard R43-13, Standard Specification for Transportation 
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Practice for 
Quantifying Roughness of Pavement, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-
56051-606-4 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  490.111);
    (ii) Shall be reported for all pavements as the average value in 
inches per mile for each section; and
    (iii) Shall not be estimated from a PSR or other observation-based 
method.
    (2) For asphalt pavements--
    (i) The Cracking Percent metric shall be computed as the percentage 
of the total area containing visible cracks to the nearest whole 
percent in each section; and
    (ii) The rutting metric shall be computed as the average depth of 
rutting, in inches to the nearest 0.05 inches, for the section.
    (3) For CRCP, the Cracking Percent metric shall be computed as the 
percentage of the area of the section to the nearest whole percent 
exhibiting longitudinal cracking, punchouts, spalling or other visible 
defects. Transverse cracking shall not be considered in the 
Cracking_Percent metric.
    (4) For jointed concrete pavements--
    (i) The Cracking Percent metric shall be computed as the percentage 
of slabs to the nearest whole percent within the section that exhibit 
cracking;
    (ii) Partial slabs shall contribute to the section that contains 
the majority of the slab length; and
    (iii) The faulting metric shall be computed as the average height, 
in inches to the nearest 0.05 inch, of faulting between pavement slabs 
for the section.
    (c) State DOTs shall report the four pavement metrics and three 
inventory data elements listed in Sec.  490.309(a) as calculated 
following the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in 
accordance with the following relevant HPMS requirements:
    (1) Metrics and inventory data elements shall be reported to the 
HPMS in uniform section lengths of 0.1 mile (528 feet); shorter 
sections are permitted only at the beginning of a route, end of a 
route, or other locations where a section length of 0.1 mile is not 
achievable; and sections shall not exceed 0.1 mile in length;
    (2) Each section shall have a single value for each of the relevant 
condition metrics and a single value for each of the inventory data 
elements.
    (3) The time and location reference shall be reported for each 
section as follows:
    (i) The State Code, Route ID, Begin Point, and End Point shall be 
reported as specified in the HPMS field manual (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  490.111) for each of the four condition metrics 
and three inventory data elements;
    (ii) The Year Record shall be reported as the four digit year for 
which the data represents for each of the four condition metrics and 
three inventory data elements; and

[[Page 389]]

    (iii) The Value Date shall be reported as the month and year of 
data collection for each of the four condition metrics.
    (4) Sections for the four condition metrics and three inventory 
data elements shall be reported to the HPMS for the Interstate System 
by April 15 of each year for the data collected during the previous 
calendar year.
    (5) Sections for the four condition metrics and three inventory 
data elements shall be reported to the HPMS for the non-Interstate NHS 
by June 15 of each year for the data collected during the previous 
calendar year.


Sec.  490.313  Calculation of performance management measures.

    (a) The pavement measures in Sec.  490.307 shall be calculated in 
accordance with this section and used by State DOTs and MPOs to carry 
out the pavement condition related requirements of this part, and by 
FHWA to make the significant progress and minimum condition 
determinations specified in Sec. Sec.  490.109 and 490.317, 
respectively.
    (b) The performance measure for pavements shall be calculated based 
on the data collected in Sec.  490.309 and pavement condition metrics 
computed in Sec.  490.311. The performance measure for pavements shall 
be based on three condition ratings of Good, Fair, and Poor calculated 
for each pavement section. The ratings are determined as follows.
    (1) IRI rating shall be determined for all pavement types using the 
following criteria:
    (i) If an IRI value of a pavement section in a non-urbanized area 
or urbanized area with a population less than 1 million is--
    (A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the pavement section is Good;
    (B) Between 95 and 170, the IRI rating for the pavement section is 
Fair; and
    (C) Greater than 170, the IRI rating for the pavement section is 
Poor.
    (ii) If an IRI value of a pavement section in an urbanized area 
with a population of at least 1 million is--
    (A) Less than 95, the IRI rating for the pavement section is Good;
    (B) Between 95 and 220, the IRI rating for the pavement section is 
Fair; and
    (C) Greater than 220, the IRI rating for the pavement section is 
Poor.
    (2) Cracking condition shall be determined using the following 
criteria:
    (i) For asphalt and jointed concrete pavement sections--
    (A) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is less than 5 
percent, the cracking rating for the pavement section is Good;
    (B) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is equal to or 
greater than 5 percent and less than or equal to 10 percent the 
cracking rating for the pavement section is Fair; and
    (C) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is greater than 10 
percent the cracking rating for the pavement section is Poor.
    (ii) For CRCP sections:
    (A) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is less than 5 
percent, the cracking rating for the pavement section is Good;
    (B) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is equal to or 
greater than 5 percent and less than or equal to 10 percent, the 
cracking rating for the pavement section is Fair; and
    (C) If the Cracking Percent value of a section is greater than 10 
percent, the cracking rating for the pavement section is Poor.
    (3) Rutting or faulting rating shall be determined using the 
following criteria.
    (i) For asphalt pavement:
    (A) If the rutting value of a section is less than 0.20 inches, the 
rutting rating for the pavement section is Good;
    (B) If the rutting value of a section is equal to or greater than 
0.20 inches and less than or equal to 0.40 inches, the rutting rating 
for the pavement section is Fair; and
    (C) If the rutting value of a section in is greater than 0.40 
inches, the rutting rating for the pavement section is Poor.
    (ii) For jointed concrete pavement:
    (A) If the faulting value of a section is less than 0.05 inches, 
the faulting rating for the pavement section is Good;
    (B) If the faulting value of a section is equal to or greater than 
0.05 inches and less than or equal to 0.15 inches, the faulting rating 
for the pavement section is Fair; and
    (C) If the faulting value of a section is greater than 0.15 inches, 
the faulting rating for the pavement section is Poor.
    (4) Missing sections or sections reported to the HPMS with 
unresolved, missing, or invalid data as determined on the dates 
specified in Sec.  490.109(d)(1) and (2), shall be addressed as 
follows:
    (i) Mainline lane-miles that are missing sections or represented 
with sections that are missing data or contain invalid data as 
specified in Sec.  490.311(c) for any of the four condition metrics 
will be rated as Poor for each respective condition metric; and
    (ii) Mainline lane-miles that are missing sections or represented 
with sections that are missing data or contain invalid data as 
specified in Sec.  490.311(c) for any of the three inventory data 
elements will be rated in overall Poor condition.
    (c) The overall condition for asphalt and jointed concrete pavement 
sections shall be determined based on the ratings for IRI, Cracking 
Percent, rutting and faulting, as described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section, respectively, for each section as follows:
    (1) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Good 
only if the section is exhibiting Good ratings for all three conditions 
(IRI, Cracking_Percent, and rutting or faulting);
    (2) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Poor 
if two or more of the three conditions are exhibiting Poor ratings (at 
least two ratings of Poor for IRI, Cracking Percent, and rutting or 
faulting).
    (3) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Fair 
if it does not meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (d) The Overall Condition for CRCP sections shall be determined 
based on two ratings of IRI and Cracking_Percent, as described in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, respectively, for each 
section as follows:
    (1) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Good 
only if the section is exhibiting Good ratings for both conditions (IRI 
and Cracking Percent);
    (2) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Poor 
if it exhibits Poor ratings for both conditions (IRI and Cracking 
Percent);
    (3) A pavement section shall be rated an overall condition of Fair 
if it does not meet the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (e) State DOTs shall not be subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of 
this section for Pavements on the non-Interstate NHS until after the 
data collection cycle ending December 31, 2019. During this transition 
period, the Overall condition for all pavement types on the non-
Interstate NHS will be based on IRI rating, as described in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, until the Cracking Percent, rutting, and 
faulting data collection requirements are in effect, as described in 
Sec.  490.309(b)(2)(iii).
    (f) The pavement condition measures in Sec.  490.307 shall be 
computed as described below. The measures shall be used for 
establishing targets in accordance with Sec.  490.105 and reporting the 
conditions of the pavements in the biennial performance reporting 
required in Sec.  490.107 as follows:
    (1) Bridges shall be excluded prior to computing all pavement 
condition measures by removing the sections where the Structure Type is 
coded as 1.
    (2) For Sec.  490.307(a)(1) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the Interstate System in Good condition shall be computed to 
the one tenth of a percent as follows:

[[Page 390]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.020

where:

Good = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections 
where the overall condition is Good;
g = a section's overall condition is determined Good per paragraphs 
(b) or (c) of this section;
t = an Interstate System section;
Total = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section g or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section g or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic 
represented by a section g or t.

    (3) For Sec.  490.307(a)(2) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the Interstate System in Poor condition shall be computed to 
the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.021

where:

Poor = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections 
where the overall condition is Poor;
p = a section's overall condition is determined Poor per paragraphs 
(b) or (c) of this section;
t = an Interstate System section;
Total = total number of mainline highway Interstate System sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section p or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section p or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic 
represented by a section p or t.

    (4) For Sec.  490.307(a)(3) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition shall be computed to 
the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.022

where:

Good = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS sections 
where the overall condition is Good;
g = a section's overall condition is determined Good per paragraphs 
(b), (c), or (d) of this section;
t = a non-Interstate NHS section;
Total = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS 
sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section g or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section g or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic 
represented by a section g or t.

    (5) For Sec.  490.307(a)(4) the measure for Percentage of lane-
miles of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition shall be computed to 
the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.023

where:

Poor = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS sections 
where the overall condition is Poor;
p = a section's overall condition is determined Poor per paragraphs 
(b), (c), or (d) of this section;
t = a non-Interstate NHS section;
Total = total number of mainline highway non-Interstate NHS 
sections;
Begin_Point = Begin Milepost of each section p or t;
End Point = End Milepost of each section p or t; and
Through_lanes = the number of lanes designated for through-traffic 
represented by a section p or t.


Sec.  490.315  Establishment of minimum level for condition of 
pavements.

    For the purposes of carrying out the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 
119(f)(1), the Percentage of lane-miles of Interstate System in Poor 
condition, as computed per Sec.  490.313(f)(3), shall not exceed 5.0 
percent.


Sec.  490.317  Penalties for not maintaining minimum Interstate System 
pavement condition.

    (a) The FHWA shall compute the percentage of lane-miles of the 
Interstate System, excluding sections on bridges, in Poor Condition, in 
accordance with Sec.  490.313(f)(3), for each State annually.
    (b) The FHWA shall extract data contained within the HPMS on June 
15 that represents conditions from the prior calendar year for 
Interstate System pavement conditions to carry out paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    (c) The FHWA shall determine State DOT compliance with Sec.  
490.315(a) after the first full year of data collection for the 
Interstate System following the effective date of this rule and each 
year thereafter.
    (d) The FHWA shall determine if a State DOT is in compliance with 
23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) after the second full year of data collection for 
the Interstate

[[Page 391]]

System following the effective date of this rule and each year 
thereafter based on the determination made in paragraph (c) of this 
section for the most recent 2 years. The FHWA will determine a State 
DOT to be in compliance with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) if the State DOT is 
determined to be in compliance with Sec.  490.315(a) in either of the 
most recent 2 years.
    (e) The FHWA will notify State DOTs of their compliance with 23 
U.S.C. 119(f)(1) prior to October 1 of the year in which the 
determination was made.
    (f) If FHWA determines through conduct of paragraph (d) of this 
section a State DOT to be out of compliance with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1) 
then the State DOT shall, during the following fiscal year:
    (1) Obligate, from the amounts apportioned to the State DOT under 
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) (for the NHPP), an amount that is not less than the 
amount of funds apportioned to the State for Federal fiscal year 2009 
under the Interstate Maintenance program for the purposes described in 
23 U.S.C. 119 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
the MAP-21), except that for each year after Federal fiscal year 2013, 
the amount required to be obligated under this clause shall be 
increased by 2 percent over the amount required to be obligated in the 
previous fiscal year; and
    (2) Transfer, from the amounts apportioned to the State DOT under 
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) (for the Surface Transportation Program) (other 
than amounts sub-allocated to metropolitan areas and other areas of the 
State under 23 U.S.C. 133(d)) to the apportionment of the State under 
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of 
funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2009 under the 
Interstate Maintenance program for the purposes described in 23 U.S.C. 
119 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the MAP-
21).


Sec.  490.319  Other requirements.

    (a) In accordance with the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  490.111), each State DOT shall report the 
following to the HPMS no later than April 15 each year:
    (1) The pavement condition metrics specified in Sec.  490.311 that 
are necessary to calculate the Interstate System condition measures 
identified in Sec. Sec.  490.307(a)(1) and (2) and;
    (2) the data elements specified in Sec.  490.309(b)(4) for the 
Interstate System
    (b) In accordance with the HPMS Field Manual (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  490.111), each State DOT shall report to the HPMS 
no later than June 15 each year the pavement condition metrics 
specified in Sec.  490.311 that are necessary to calculate the non-
Interstate NHS condition measures in Sec. Sec.  490.307(a)(3) and (4).
    (c) Each State DOT shall develop and utilize a Data Quality 
Management Program, approved by FHWA that addresses the quality of all 
data collected, regardless of the method of acquisition, to report the 
pavement condition metrics, discussed in Sec.  490.311, and data 
elements discussed in Sec.  490.309(b)(4).
    (1) In a Data Quality Management Programs, State DOTs shall 
include, at a minimum, methods and processes for:
    (i) Data collection equipment calibration and certification;
    (ii) Certification process for persons performing manual data 
collection;
    (iii) Data quality control measures to be conducted before data 
collection begins and periodically during the data collection program;
    (iv) Data sampling, review and checking processes; and
    (v) Error resolution procedures and data acceptance criteria.
    (2) Not later than 1 year after the effective date of this 
regulation, State DOTs shall submit their Data Quality Management 
Program to FHWA for approval. Once FHWA approves a State DOT's Data 
Quality Management Program, the State DOT shall use that Program to 
collect and report data required by Sec. Sec.  490.309 to 490.311. 
State DOTs also shall submit any proposed significant change to the 
Data Quality Management Program to FHWA for approval prior to 
implementing the change.
0
5. Add subpart D to read as follows:
Subpart D--National Performance Management Measures for Assessing 
Bridge Condition
Sec.
490.401 Purpose.
490.403 Applicability.
490.405 Definitions.
490.407 National performance management measures for assessing 
bridge condition.
490.409 Calculation of National performance management measures for 
assessing bridge condition.
490.411 Establishment of minimum level for condition for bridges.
490.413 Penalties for not maintaining bridge condition.

Subpart D--National Performance Management Measures for Assessing 
Bridge Condition

Sec.  490.401 Purpose.
    The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23 
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(III), which requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to establish performance measures for the purpose of 
carrying out the NHPP and for State DOTs and MPOs to use in assessing 
the condition of bridges on the NHS.


Sec.  490.403  Applicability.

    The section is only applicable to NHS bridges including bridges on 
ramps connecting to the NHS as defined by 23 U.S.C. 103.


Sec.  490.405  Definitions.

    The following definitions are only applicable to this subpart, 
unless otherwise provided:
    Bridge as used in this section, is defined in 23 CFR 650.305, the 
National Bridge Inspection Standards.
    Structurally deficient as used in Sec. Sec.  490.411 and 490.413 is 
a classification given to a bridge which has significant load carrying 
elements in poor or worse condition or the adequacy of the waterway 
opening provided by the bridge is determined to be insufficient to the 
point of causing overtopping with intolerable traffic interruptions.


Sec.  490.407  National performance management measures for assessing 
bridge condition.

    (a) There are three classifications for the purpose of assessing 
bridge condition. They are:
    (1) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition;
    (2) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Fair condition; and
    (3) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition.
    (b) [Reserved].
    (c) To carry out the NHPP, two of the three classifications are 
performance measures for State DOTs to use to assess bridge condition 
on the NHS. They are:
    (1) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition; and
    (2) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition.
    (d) Determination of Good and Poor conditions are described in 
Sec.  490.409.


Sec.  490.409  Calculation of national performance management measures 
for assessing bridge condition.

    (a) The bridge measures in Sec.  490.407 shall be calculated in 
accordance with this section and used by State DOTs and MPOs to carry 
out the bridge condition related requirements of this part and by FHWA 
to make the significant progress determination specified in Sec.  
490.109.
    (b) The condition of bridges on the NHS, including bridges on ramps 
connecting to the NHS, shall be classified as Good, Fair, or Poor 
following the criteria specified in this paragraph. The assignment of a 
classification of Good, Fair, or Poor

[[Page 392]]

shall be based on the bridge's condition ratings for NBI Items 58--
Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, and 62--Culverts. For the 
purposes of national performance measures under the NHPP, the method of 
assessment to determine the classification of a bridge will be the 
minimum of condition rating method, i.e., the condition ratings for 
lowest rating of a bridge's 3 NBI Items, 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 
and 60--Substructure, and will determine the classification of a 
bridge. For culverts, the rating of its NBI Item, 62--Culverts, will 
determine its classification. The NHS bridges will be classified as 
Good, Fair, or Poor based on the following criteria:
    (1) Good: When the lowest rating of any of the 3 NBI items for a 
bridge (Items 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure) is 7, 8 
or 9, the bridge will be classified as Good. When the rating of NBI 
item for a culvert (Item 62--Culverts) is 7, 8, or 9, the culvert will 
be classified as Good.
    (2) Fair: When the lowest rating of any of the 3 NBI items for a 
bridge is 5 or 6, the bridge will be classified as Fair. When the 
rating of NBI item for a culvert is 5 or 6, the culvert will be 
classified as Fair.
    (3) Poor: When the lowest rating of any of the 3 NBI items for a 
bridge is 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, the bridge will be classified as Poor. When 
the rating of NBI item for a culvert is 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, the culvert 
will be classified as Poor.
    (c) The bridge measures specified in Sec.  490.407(c) shall be 
calculated for the applicable bridges per paragraph (a) of this section 
that pertain to each target established by the State DOT or MPO in 
Sec.  490.105(e) and (f), respectively, as follows:
    (1) For Sec.  490.407(c)(1), the measure for the Percentage of 
bridges classified as in Good condition shall be computed and reported 
to the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.024

Where:

GOOD = total number of the applicable bridges, where their condition 
is Good per paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
g = a bridge determined to be in Good condition per paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 49--Structure Length for 
every applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 52--Deck Width or value of 
Item 32 Approach Roadway Width for culverts where the roadway is on 
a fill [i.e., traffic does not directly run on the top slab (or 
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the headwalls do not affect the 
flow of traffic for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of this section; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable bridges specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section.

    (2) For Sec.  490.407(c)(2), the measure for the Percentage of 
bridges classified as in Poor condition shall be computed and reported 
to the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.025

Where:

POOR = total number of the applicable bridges, where their condition 
is Poor per paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
p = a bridge determined to be in Poor condition per paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 49--Structure Length for 
every applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 52--Deck Width or value of 
Item 32 Approach Roadway Width for culverts where the roadway is on 
a fill [i.e., traffic does not directly run on the top slab (or 
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the headwalls do not affect the 
flow of traffic for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per paragraph (b) of this section; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable bridges specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section.

    (d) The measures identified in Sec.  490.407(c) shall be used to 
establish targets in accordance with Sec.  490.105 and report targets 
and conditions described in Sec.  490.107.
    (e) The NBI Items included in this section are found in the 
Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of 
the Nation's Bridges, which is incorporated by reference (see Sec.  
490.111).


Sec.  490.411  Establishment of minimum level for condition for 
bridges.

    (a) State DOTs will maintain bridges so that the percentage of the 
deck area of bridges classified as Structurally Deficient does not 
exceed 10.0 percent. This minimum condition level is applicable to 
bridges on the NHS and bridges on ramps connecting to the NHS within a 
State and bridges on the NHS that cross a State border.
    (b) For the purposes of carrying out this section and Sec.  
490.413, a bridge will be classified as Structurally Deficient when one 
of its NBI Items, 58--Deck, 59--Superstructure, 60--Substructure, or 
62--Culverts, is 4 or less, or when one of its NBI Items, 67--
Structural Evaluation or 71--Waterway Adequacy, is 2 or less.
    (c) For all NHS bridges including ramps connecting to the NHS and 
NHS bridges that cross a State border, FHWA shall calculate a ratio of 
the total deck area of all bridges classified as Structurally Deficient 
to the total deck area of all applicable bridges for each State. The 
percentage of deck area of bridges classified as Structurally Deficient 
shall be computed by FHWA to the one tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05JA15.026


[[Page 393]]


Where:

Structurally Deficient = total number of the applicable bridges, 
where their classification is Structurally Deficient per this 
section and Sec.  490.413;
SD = a bridge classified as Structurally Deficient per this section 
and Sec.  490.413;
Length = corresponding value of NBI Item 49--Structure Length for 
every applicable bridge;
Width = corresponding value of NBI Item 52--Deck Width or value of 
Item 32 Approach Roadway Width for culverts where the roadway is on 
a fill [i.e., traffic does not directly run on the top slab (or 
wearing surface) of the culvert] and the headwalls do not affect the 
flow of traffic for every applicable bridge.
s = an applicable bridge per this section and Sec.  490.413; and
TOTAL = total number of the applicable bridges specified in this 
section and Sec.  490.413.

    (d) The FHWA will annually determine the percentage of the deck 
area of NHS bridges classified as Structurally Deficient for each State 
DOT and identify State DOTs that do not meet the minimum level of 
condition for NHS bridges based on data cleared in the NBI as of June 
15 of each year. The FHWA will notify State DOTs of their compliance 
with 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2) prior to October 1 of the year in which the 
determination was made.
    (e) For the purposes of carrying out this section, State DOTs will 
annually submit their most current NBI data on highway bridges to FHWA 
no later than March 15 of each year.
    (f) The NBI Items included in this section are found in the 
Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of 
the Nation's Bridges, which is incorporated by reference (see Sec.  
490.111).


Sec.  490.413  Penalties for not maintaining bridge condition.

    (a) If FHWA determines for the 3-year period preceding the date of 
the determination, that more than 10.0 percent of the total deck area 
of bridges in the State on the NHS is located on bridges that have been 
classified as Structurally Deficient, the following requirements will 
apply.
    (1) During the fiscal year following the determination, the State 
DOT shall obligate and set aside in an amount equal to 50 percent of 
funds apportioned to such State for fiscal year 2009 to carry out 23 
U.S.C. 144 (as in effect the day before enactment of MAP-21) from 
amounts apportioned to a State for a fiscal year under 23 U.S.C. 
104(b)(1) only for eligible projects on bridges on the NHS.
    (2) The set-aside and obligation requirement for bridges on the NHS 
in a State in this paragraph (a) for a fiscal year shall remain in 
effect for each subsequent fiscal year until such time as less than 10 
percent of the total deck area of bridges in the State on the NHS is 
located on bridges that have been classified as Structurally Deficient 
as determined by FHWA.
    (b) The FHWA will make the first determination by October 1, 2016, 
and each fiscal year thereafter.

[FR Doc. 2014-30085 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P