[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7510-7514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA-2021-0011]


Improving Road Safety for All Users on Federal-Aid Projects

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: Our priority at DOT and FHWA is to make our transportation 
system safe for all people. Right now, we face a crisis on our 
roadways. In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people across the Nation--117 
people per day--lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes.

[[Page 7511]]

This represents the highest number of fatalities since 2005. Every 
transportation project, whether the project's purpose is safety-related 
or not, is an opportunity to improve safety. The street network 
including on-road and off-road facilities should provide safe, 
equitable, accessible, and comfortable transportation for everyone. 
Part of the work that DOT proposes to significantly reduce fatalities 
and serious injuries on our Nation's highways, roads, and streets is to 
develop a National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS). The NRSS, adopts the 
Safe System Approach principles to guide our safety actions, and 
identifies critical and significant actions DOT will take now in 
pursuit of five core objectives: Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer 
Vehicles, Safer Speeds, and Post-Crash Care. As part of the actions to 
address the national crisis of fatalities and serious injuries on our 
roadways, FHWA requests comments on what strategies, programmatic 
adjustments or regulatory changes could help improve safety on U.S. 
highways. Requests for comments include but are not limited to whether 
changes to the FHWA Design Standards regulation or other FHWA 
regulations are needed to facilitate the development of Complete 
Streets and Complete Networks that serve all users, how the safety 
performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed, how funding 
could be optimized for safety improvements, and how to include measures 
and collection of more data that can improve safety performance across 
Federal-aid projects.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, 
please submit comments by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is (202) 366-9329;
     Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket 
number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking 
at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice, 
contact: Phillip Bobitz, FHWA Office of Safety Technologies, (717) 221-
4574, dot.gov">Phillip.Bobitz@dot.gov, or Elizabeth Hilton, Office of 
Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements, (202) 924-8618, 
dot.gov">Elizabeth.Hilton@dot.gov; for legal questions contact Lev Gabrilovich, 
FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-3813, 
dot.gov">Lev.Gabrilovich@dot.gov. FHWA is located at 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:

Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of this notice, all comments received on this notice, and 
all background material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic 
retrieval help and guidelines are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document also may be 
downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at 
www.FederalRegister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website 
at www.GovInfo.gov.

Background

    In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people across the Nation--117 people 
per day--lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes. This represents the 
highest number of fatalities since 2005 and is a result of increases on 
rural Interstates and urban roads, among younger and older drivers, 
pedestrians and bicyclists, and in other crash types.\1\ In January, 
DOT unveiled the NRSS.\2\ The NRSS commits DOT and FHWA to respond to 
the current crisis in traffic fatalities by ``taking substantial, 
comprehensive action to significantly reduce serious and fatal injuries 
on the Nation's roadways,'' in pursuit of the goal of achieving zero 
highway deaths. To achieve this goal, the Department has adopted the 
``Safe System Approach,'' which acknowledges both human mistakes and 
human vulnerability, and designs a redundant system to protect everyone 
by preventing crashes and ensuring that if they do occur, they do not 
result in serious injury or death. The Department will use a five-
pronged model to address safety: safer people, safer roads, safer 
vehicles, safer speeds and post-crash care. Under the NRSS, FHWA 
committed to launching a Complete Streets initiative, to implement 
policies that prioritize the safety of all users in transportation 
network planning, design, construction, and operations. An important 
area of focus for the NRSS is the disproportionate, adverse safety 
impacts that affect certain groups on our roadways. Fatalities due to 
traffic crashes disproportionately affect communities of color, people 
living in rural areas, people with disabilities, and older adults. For 
example, fatalities among Black people increased by 23 percent between 
2019 and 2020 compared to an overall increase of 7.2 percent.\3\ People 
who are American Indian and Alaska Native have roadway fatality rates 
more than double the national rate on a per population basis.\4\ 
Although men consistently represent more than 70 percent of drivers 
involved in fatal crashes, when comparable crashes are analyzed and 
risk taking differences are accounted for, studies have shown that 
motor vehicle fatality risk is, on average, 17 percent higher for a 
female than for a male of the same age.\5\ The disproportionate safety 
impacts are especially true in underserved communities, where people 
face heightened exposure to risk. The 40 percent of counties with the 
highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced a fatality rate 35 percent 
higher than the national average on a per population basis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Newly Released Estimates Show Traffic Fatalities Reached a 
16-year High in 2021 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-
estimate-2021-traffic-
fatalities#:~:text=The%20National%20Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,the%20
38%2C824%20fatalities%20in%202020.
    \2\ DOT National Roadway Safety Strategy, January 2022, 
available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf.
    \3\ NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities 
And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020, June 2021, available at 
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118.
    \4\ NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2018 Final 
File; Population--Census Bureau.
    \5\ NHTSA Injury Vulnerability and Effectiveness of Occupant 
Protection Technologies for Older Occupants and Women, May 2013, 
available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811766.
    \6\ FARS 2019 data publication, 1st release; Poverty rates and 
Population data by County, U.S. Census. The fatality rate for the 
top 40 percent of counties by poverty rate was 14.9 per 100,000 
population versus 11.0 for the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traffic deaths among people who walk or bike have also become a 
higher proportion of fatalities. This highlights the need for a Safe 
System approach that not only addresses safety on roadways but also the 
multimodal aspect of how our infrastructure works. More information can 
be found about

[[Page 7512]]

the specific commitments of the NRSS at https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS.

Funding

    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Nov. 15, 2021), 
provides a historic opportunity for FHWA to work closely with State, 
local and Tribal partners to put increased transportation funding to 
work incorporating safety for all users into every federally-funded 
road project. FHWA encourages States and other funding recipients to 
prioritize safety in all Federal highway investments and in all 
appropriate projects, using relevant Federal-aid funding. This notice 
and the actions that follow are part of the solution in achieving the 
vision of zero fatalities.
    The FHWA provides financial aid (Federal-aid) to States for the 
improvement of Federal-aid highways through the Federal-aid highway 
program (FAHP). A Federal-aid highway is a public highway eligible for 
assistance under Chapter 1, of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), 
other than a highway functionally classified as a local road or rural 
minor collector (23 U.S.C. 101(a)(6)).
    Between 2016 and 2020, 85 percent \7\ of all public highway 
fatalities occurred on Federal-aid highways, which represent 25 percent 
\8\ of the entire public highway network. The Highway Safety 
Improvement Program (HSIP), legislated under 23 U.S.C. 148, is the core 
funding program administered by FHWA under FAHP for safety, and HSIP 
funds are eligible for use on all public highways. State, local, and 
Tribal agencies mainly use HSIP funds when addressing safety; however, 
this dedicated source of safety funds is relatively small compared to 
other Federal-aid funding programs, representing only about 6 percent 
of the total FAHP.\9\ FHWA recognizes that the funding available 
through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the 
Nation's highways and is seeking comments through this notice on how to 
include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid 
projects. Examples of other FHWA formula funds that can be used for 
safety improvements include the National Highway Performance Program, 
and the Surface Transportation Block Grant program, which includes the 
Transportation Alternatives Set Aside funds which authorize funding for 
programs and projects including Safe Routes to Schools projects. The 
FAHP funds also may be used for any pedestrian and bicycle facility, 
whether on or off-road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2016-2019 
Final and 2020 Annual Report File (ARF) Fatalities in motor vehicle 
traffic crashes by year and Federal highway status. Federal-aid 
highways include all Land Use and Functional System attributes in 
FARS except: Land Use attribute 1 (rural) and Functional System 
attributes 06 (minor collector) and 07 (local), Land Use attribute 2 
(Urban) and Functional System attribute 07 (local), and unknowns 
from Land Use and Functional System.
    \8\ FHWA Highway Statistics 2019 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/hm16.cfm).
    \9\ Federal-aid apportioned programs under the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58, also known as the 
``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'') (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/funding.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulations

    States that receive Federal-aid under the FAHP for their Federal-
aid highways must adhere to applicable Federal statutes and 
regulations. Among the requirements included in these statutes and 
regulations are requirements pertaining to the consideration of safety. 
For example, States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) 
establish and implement planning processes that provide for the 
consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services 
that will address the safety of the transportation system for motorized 
and nonmotorized users. See 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135. In addition, 23 
U.S.C. 109 requires that each Federal-aid project provide facilities 
that are conducive to safety and specifies that the Secretary must 
consider the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) in developing design 
criteria. See 23 U.S.C. 109(a)(1) and 109(c)(2)(D). This statute also 
requires that the design of a highway on the National Highway System 
(NHS), other than a highway also on the Interstate System, consider 
access for other modes of transportation. 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1)(D). The 
FHWA's Design Standards regulations codified in Part 625 of Title 23 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (23 CFR part 625 or part 625) 
note in 23 CFR 625.2(c) that an important goal of FHWA is to provide 
the highest practical and feasible level of safety for people and 
property associated with the Nation's highway transportation systems.

Safety Beyond Roadways

    Starting with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240), Federal 
transportation laws and policies have placed increasing emphasis on 
improving the safety and comfort of pedestrian and bicycle travel. The 
DOT and FHWA have sought to provide travelers with a choice of 
transportation modes and increase the percentage of trips made by 
nonmotorized modes of travel. Statutory changes have established broad 
eligibility of bicycle and pedestrian facilities for Federal-aid 
funding. See 23 U.S.C. 133(h), 206, 208, and 217. However, an 
increasing portion of highway fatalities are people outside of 
automobiles, primarily pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists, and 
in 2021 these modes made up more than one-third of all traffic 
fatalities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities 
And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, May 2022, available at 
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House Report accompanying the DOT, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 2021 
requested a report from FHWA reviewing its current policies, rules, and 
procedures to determine their impact on safety for road users, 
particularly those outside of automobiles. FHWA delivered this report, 
``Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on 
Opportunities and Challenges,'' in March 2022.\11\ Potential solutions 
proposed in the report include the issuance of guidance to help ensure 
that FHWA design standards are interpreted and applied to better 
consider safety for all users, and the identification of methods to 
increase the assessment of safety outcomes across all types of Federal-
aid projects to improve safety performance. Specific actions under 
these solutions include requesting information from stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to 
Congress on Opportunities and Challenges (dot.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FHWA requests comments on two specific areas of the 
FAHP: (1) the design of roads on the NHS; and (2) how the safety 
performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed and how to 
include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid 
projects.

Design Standards for the NHS

    The FHWA requests information to inform efforts to develop road 
designs for all users that can reduce motor vehicle-related crashes, 
pedestrian and bicyclist risk, and encourage walking and bicycling for 
transportation by incorporating well-designed multimodal 
infrastructure. The BIL defines ``Complete Streets standards or 
policies'' as those which ``ensure the safe and adequate accommodation 
of all users of the transportation system,

[[Page 7513]]

including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, 
children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, 
and freight vehicles.'' \12\ Complete Streets prioritize safety, 
comfort, and connectivity to destinations for people who use the 
surface transportation network and reduce motor vehicle-related crashes 
and pedestrian and bicyclist risk by incorporating well-designed 
multimodal infrastructure. They also can promote walking and bicycling 
by providing safer places to achieve physical activity through 
transportation.\13\ Many State and local governments have adopted 
Complete Streets policies, ordinances, or laws to integrate people and 
place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance 
of our transportation networks.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Congress. ``H.R. 3684--Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act.'', Section 11206(a), Accessed November 2021.
    \13\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Guide 
to Preventative Services, accessed December 23, 2021, available at 
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/resources/one-pager-built-environment-approaches-increase-physical-activity.
    \14\ Smart Growth America website, accessed on November 3, 2021, 
available at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA Design Standards regulations in Part 625 govern design 
standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction, 
reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), 
restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS. The NHS consists 
of roadways important to the Nation's economy, defense, and mobility, 
including all Interstate highways, other principal arterials, as well 
as other highways and city streets. Part 625 impacts the design of city 
streets that are on the NHS, regardless of ownership or project 
funding.\15\ Part 625 incorporates several publications by reference, 
including AASHTO publication, A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and 
Streets (Green Book). The Green Book provides a range of acceptable 
values for geometric features, allowing for flexibility that best suits 
the context and vision of the community while satisfying the purpose 
for the project and needs of all users. When the design standards in 
Part 625 are not met, FHWA, or a State department of transportation 
(State DOT) that has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship 
and Oversight agreement, may consider design exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FHWA website on the NHS, including maps in each State, 
accessed on November 3, 2021, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Traffic Control Device standards are not covered by Part 625, but 
by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways (MUTCD). The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR 655, 
and is not a design standard. A Notice of Proposed Amendments to the 
MUTCD was issued for public comment \16\ as part of a rulemaking. 
Development of a Final Rule to issue a new edition of the MUTCD is 
underway and this request is not seeking comments on the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 85 FR 80898, December 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data-Driven Safety Assessments

    Many State DOTs have developed tools, policies, and procedures to 
assess and analyze the safety performance of their existing facilities 
and projects, and to determine project alternatives and countermeasures 
that yield optimal safety performance, thus contributing to reduced 
fatalities and serious injuries on their transportation systems. These 
tools, policies and procedures include the use of Data-Driven Safety 
Analysis (DDSA) techniques that inform State DOTs' and local agencies' 
decisionmaking and target investments that improve safety and equity. 
DDSA is the application of the latest evidence-based tools and 
approaches to assess an existing or proposed transportation facility's 
future safety performance, including the use of AASHTO's HSM.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AASHTO HSM, 1st ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2010, is 
available at http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, safety is a required consideration in the development 
of a highway project for funding under the FAHP. Also, FHWA has taken 
various steps to further the consideration of safety in project 
development. However, in the wake of the recent trends related to 
fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, more needs to be done. 
Therefore, FHWA is interested in hearing from the public on a range of 
questions related to whether changes to Part 625 or other regulations 
codified in Title 23 of the CFR are needed, how the safety performance 
of Federal-aid projects should be assessed, and how to include measures 
that improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. The FHWA 
may use the information gathered through the public comments to 
consider future rulemaking options related to the design standards for 
projects on the NHS or for safety performance assessments on Federal-
aid projects, or to develop resources (i.e., case studies, 
informational briefs, etc.) that can assist agencies with improving 
safety for all users when developing projects regardless of funding 
source.
    For purposes of this RFI and as referenced throughout the 
questions, a safety performance assessment involves the application of 
analytical tools and techniques for quantifying the potential effects 
of transportation investment decisions in terms of crash frequency and 
severity.

Request for Comments and Information

    The FHWA requests comments on the following questions. Please 
indicate in your written comments which question(s) you are answering.

Improving Road Safety for All Users

    1. What steps are being taken by your agency (if you are commenting 
on behalf of an agency) or an agency you are familiar with to improve 
safety for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public 
transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with 
disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles? How are equity and 
demographic data considered?
    2. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or 
policies (or similar policies), what benefits does your agency see in 
developing Complete Streets? Provide examples and citations to relevant 
regulations, policies, procedures, performance measures, or other 
materials where possible.
    3. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or 
policies (or similar policies), what challenges has your agency 
experienced when implementing your Complete Streets policy?
    4. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or 
policies (or similar policies), but have not adopted an alternative 
classification system, how do you identify the appropriate context(s) 
for the application of a complete streets design model? Under what 
types of circumstances have you found the development of Complete 
Streets to be inappropriate?
    5. To inform decisions on street design, some agencies \18\ have 
adopted modal hierarchies, or alternative street classification 
systems, that prioritize pedestrians, bicyclists, or others on certain 
street types based on context.\19\ Has your agency incorporated such a 
hierarchy, or classification into agency policies, and if so, what 
benefits have

[[Page 7514]]

been realized? Please provide a link to your documents for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Example: Portland, Oregon, uses the prioritization of modes 
shown on p. 4 at https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/tsp-101-two-pager-03-21-2019.pdf.
    \19\ Example: Florida DOT Context Classification Guide, Figure 
15. https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/roadway/completestreets/files/fdot-context-classification.pdf?sfvrsn=12be90da_4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Design Standards for the NHS

    6. How could the FHWA regulations governing Design Standards for 
Highways (Part 625) be revised to consistently support prioritization 
of the safety of all users across all project types?
    7. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR 
are needed to equitably improve safety for people of all ages and 
abilities who use urban and suburban streets?
    8. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR 
are needed to equitably improve safety for people of all ages and 
abilities who use rural roadways, including in rural towns?
    9. What, if any, elements of design are not adequately covered by 
the existing design standards in Part 625?
    10. What specific provisions of Part 625 present an obstacle to 
equitably improving safety for people outside of vehicles, and why?
    11. Are there additional documents that FHWA should incorporate by 
reference in Part 625 to better facilitate the context-sensitive design 
of streets that safely serve all users? Please identify the documents 
and describe why they should be referenced in the regulation.
    12. Does Part 625 create any impediments to developing projects 
that meet the goals of your agency? If so, what goals are impeded, what 
are the impediments, and how would you suggest the regulation be 
revised?

Safety Performance Assessment Applicability

    13. For which current projects (i.e., by improvement type, funding 
program/level, facility type, etc.) are safety performance assessments 
or analyses conducted in your State?
    14. To what extent is the safety performance assessed on non-HSIP 
funded projects?
    15. What policies or procedures on conducting project-specific 
safety performance assessments and analyses does your agency have? 
Provide examples and citations to relevant laws, regulations, policies, 
procedures, or other materials where possible.

Conducting a Safety Performance Assessment

    16. What methods, tools, and types of safety performance 
assessments are used to analyze project-specific safety performance? 
What are the minimum data and analysis requirements that should be 
considered on how to conduct a safety performance assessment?
    17. With whom do States engage (i.e. counties, cities, MPOs, rural 
planning organizations, and other political subdivisions) when 
assessing safety performance? How do States engage the public or use 
the safety performance assessment results to communicate to the public 
using inclusive and representative processes?
    18. How are safety performance assessments integrated into the 
overall project development cycle? At which stage(s) of the project 
development process (e.g., planning and programming, environmental 
analysis, design, operations and maintenance) are project-specific 
safety performance assessments conducted? Are evaluations conducted 
after the project has been implemented? Responses may include examples 
of projects where safety performance assessments were conducted and how 
they informed the final project deliverables.
    19. How is safety performance assessed or considered at the system 
level planning or early transportation project identification/
prioritization stage? How is network screening used to inform project 
decisionmaking?

Safety Performance Assessment Process Evaluation and Outcomes

    20. What indicators or measures have been used to determine the 
effectiveness of safety performance assessments?
    21. To what extent is the safety performance assessment or analysis 
used to inform project decisionmaking? How is safety performance 
weighted in relation to factors such as environmental impact or traffic 
congestion? Are there requirements to include countermeasures or 
evaluation of alternative designs that are expected to improve safety 
performance? If yes, please provide examples of the requirements or 
projects where the safety performance assessment led to the 
implementation of countermeasures and strategies that improved safety 
performance.
    22. How is safety performance evaluated after the project is 
implemented? To what extent are countermeasures, alternative designs, 
or strategies to improve safety performance replicated on other 
projects, based on past project evaluations?

Safety Performance Assessment Implementation Considerations

    23. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible 
Federal requirements for safety performance assessments on certain 
Federal-aid projects?
    24. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible 
Federal requirements for implementing cost-effective safety 
improvements resulting from safety performance assessments?
    25. What benefits does your agency see with possible Federal 
requirements for safety performance assessments on certain Federal-aid 
projects where safety may not be the sole motivation for the project? 
What benefits does your agency see for any Federal requirements for 
cost-effective safety improvements resulting from the assessments?
    26. What criteria, thresholds, characteristics, or other factors 
should States consider when determining when to conduct a project-
specific safety performance assessment or analysis for projects on the 
Federal-aid highway system?
    27. What additional resources (i.e., staff, guidance, tools, 
budget, etc.) would be necessary to adequately assess the expected 
safety performance of Federal-aid projects?
    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103, 109, 134, 135 and 402; Sec. 1404 of Pub. 
L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312; 49 CFR 1.85; 23 CFR part 625.

    Signed in Washington, DC.
Gloria M. Shepherd,
Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-02285 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P