[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13000-13013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02831]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 924

[Docket No. FHWA-2023-0045]
RIN 2125-AG07


Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to 
update the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) regulations to 
address provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
(also known as the ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law'' (BIL)) and reflect 
current priorities and state-of-practice. Specifically, FHWA proposes 
to amend the regulatory language to incorporate the Safe System 
Approach, clarify the scope of the HSIP to focus on the safety of all 
road users on the entire public road network, improve evaluation 
practices, streamline reporting efforts, and ensure States are 
collecting Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data 
elements. The proposed changes would clarify provisions regarding the 
planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of HSIPs that are 
administered in each State. These changes would further strengthen and 
advance the safety and equity priorities of the DOT National Roadway 
Safety Strategy (NRSS) and assist States with making safety gains 
designed to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on the Nation's 
roads.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at www.regulations.gov. 
All comments should include the docket number that appears in the 
heading of this document. All comments received will be available for 
examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring 
notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears 
after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the 
electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the 
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, 
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 
19477-78) or you may visit www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Scurry, Office of Safety, 
(202) 897-7168, dot.gov">karen.scurry@dot.gov; or Mr. David Serody, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4241, dot.gov">david.serody@dot.gov, Federal 
Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., E.T., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

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

[[Page 13001]]

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The FHWA proposes to update the HSIP regulations to reflect the 
changes to HSIP made in BIL (Pub. L. 117-58), further strengthen and 
advance the Department's safety and equity priorities consistent with 
the NRSS,\1\ and assist States with making safety gains designed to 
eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on the Nation's roads. The 
Department recognizes that the current status of traffic fatalities in 
the United States is unacceptable \2\ and has adopted the Safe System 
Approach as the guiding paradigm to address roadway safety and achieve 
the goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries in the NRSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Roadway Safety Strategy [verbar] U.S. Department of 
Transportation https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS.
    \2\ USDOT Releases New Data Showing That Road Fatalities Spiked 
in First Half of 2021 [verbar] NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Safe System Approach is a worldwide movement that has been in 
place for more than 30 years. The Safe System Approach requires a 
paradigm shift in how road safety is addressed for all users. Whereas 
traditional road safety strives to modify human behavior and prevent 
all crashes, the Safe System Approach refocuses transportation system 
design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening 
impact forces on the human body to reduce crash severity and save 
lives. It is based on a shared responsibility and emphasizes that all 
stakeholders have a role to play in ensuring that crashes do not lead 
to fatal or serious injuries.
    The HSIP is a key place to integrate the Safe System Approach as it 
sets the funding and policy tone for national roadway safety 
implementation efforts. Therefore, FHWA proposes updates to the HSIP 
regulation to include regulatory language to incorporate the Safe 
System Approach. The proposed changes are based on the opportunities 
identified in the NRSS and informational report on Integrating the Safe 
System Approach with the HSIP.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Integrating The Safe System Approach With The Highway Safety 
Improvement Program: An Informational Report (dot.gov) FHWA-SA-20-
018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this NPRM is to update the HSIP regulations to 
incorporate the Safe System Approach, clarify the scope of the HSIP to 
focus on the safety of all road users on the entire public road 
network, improve evaluation practices, streamline reporting efforts, 
and ensure States are collecting MIRE fundamental data elements. 
Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to amend FHWA's regulations to 
incorporate the Safe System Approach by revising the policy of the HSIP 
regulation to focus on advancing a Safe System Approach in support of 
the long-term goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries, 
emphasize how a State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) can 
support a Safe System Approach, clarify that a State's SHSP must 
include a vulnerable road user safety assessment in accordance with 23 
U.S.C. 148(l), and require each State to conduct a systemwide safety 
risk assessment as part of its HSIP data analysis process. This 
rulemaking also proposes to clarify throughout the regulation that the 
HSIP applies to all public roads and for all road users and ensure a 
State's HSIP process meet legislative requirements, including those 
added by BIL. The FHWA also proposes to improve HSIP evaluation 
practices by requiring each State to establish a process to evaluate 
the effectiveness of data improvement activities for MIRE fundamental 
data elements and clarifying that HSIP evaluation shall include 
individual project evaluations, countermeasure evaluations, and program 
evaluations. To streamline HSIP reporting efforts, FHWA proposes to 
update the required content of the annual HSIP report to minimize 
duplication and focus on progress implementing highway safety 
improvement projects and the effectiveness of those projects. Finally, 
to ensure States are collecting the required MIRE fundamental data 
elements, FHWA proposes to require each State to submit MIRE 
fundamental data elements as part of their regular Highway Performance 
Monitoring System submittal beginning in 2026.

III. Costs and Benefits

    In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, and DOT guidance, FHWA evaluated 
this proposed rule for quantifiable costs, cost savings, and benefits. 
The FHWA anticipates increased data collection and reporting 
requirements will impose additional burden on State departments of 
transportation (States) as well as additional review burden by FHWA. 
The FHWA anticipates that cost savings to FHWA and States will result 
from changing the focus of the HSIP report.
    In accordance with OMB guidance, FHWA estimated the costs and cost 
savings over a 10-year analysis period using both a 7 percent and a 3 
percent discount rate.\4\ For the 10-year period from 2024 through 
2033, FHWA estimated the costs of the proposed rule at $64.9 million, 
or $9.2 million on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars and using 
a 7 percent discount rate. If a 3 percent discount rate is used these 
costs are estimated at $70.3 million for the same 10-year period, or 
$8.2 million on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars. The FHWA 
also expects the proposed rule to have some cost savings. For the 10-
year period from 2024 through 2033, FHWA estimated the cost savings of 
the proposed rule at $227,442, or $32,383 on an annual basis using a 7 
percent discount rate. If a 3 percent discount rate is used, these cost 
savings are estimated at $276,230 for the same 10-year period, or 
$32,383 on an annual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4, Regulatory 
Analysis. 68 FR 58366, October 9, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes resulting from the proposed rule are expected to advance 
the purpose of the HSIP by increasing safety and resulting in fewer 
traffic-related injuries and fatalities. In accordance with OMB 
guidance, FHWA follows a break-even analysis approach to calculate the 
number of lives that need to be saved in each year for the benefits of 
the proposed rule to outweigh the costs. The break-even analysis 
concludes that a single life saved annually justifies the proposed 
rule.
    A supporting analysis and a spreadsheet in the rulemaking docket 
(FHWA-2023-0045) contain additional details. The FHWA requests data and 
comments that could inform the economic analysis for this rulemaking, 
including any estimates of resulting benefits.

Background and Legal Authority

    In 2020, an average of approximately 106 people lost their lives on 
roads in the U.S. every day.\5\ From 2011 to 2020, traffic fatalities 
in the U.S. increased by 20 percent nationally, representing the 
highest number of fatalities since 2007.\6\ At the same time, the 
number of non-motorist (pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and others) 
fatalities increased by 44 percent from 2011 to 2020.\7\ The number of 
people dying on U.S. roads is

[[Page 13002]]

unacceptable. Through collective action from all roadway system 
stakeholders--from system managers and vehicle manufacturers to law 
enforcement and everyday users--we can move to a Safe System Approach 
that helps to anticipate human mistakes and keeps impact energy on the 
human body to tolerable levels, with the goal of eliminating fatalities 
and serious injuries for all road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database, (2020 data based 
on FARS data publication, 1st release.) https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
    \6\ NHTSA, Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in 2020. (2022, 
March). DOT HS 813 266 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266.
    \7\ NHTSA, FARS database, (2020 data based on FARS data 
publication, 1st release.) https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Safe System Approach is a worldwide movement that has been in 
place for more than 30 years, and it involves a paradigm shift in how 
road safety is addressed. Whereas traditional road safety strives to 
modify human behavior and prevent all crashes, the Safe System Approach 
refocuses transportation system design and operation on anticipating 
human mistakes and lessening impact forces on the human body to reduce 
crash severity and save lives. It is based on a shared responsibility 
and emphasizes that all stakeholders have a role to play in ensuring 
that crashes do not lead to fatal or serious injuries. In line with 
DOT's and FHWA's top priority of safety, DOT and FHWA fully support the 
vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on the Nation's roadway 
system and have adopted the Safe System Approach as part of the NRSS. 
Implementing the Safe System Approach requires evaluating the current 
state-of-practice, evolving the approach for consistency, and 
institutionalizing the paradigm shift. The HSIP, which sets the funding 
and policy tone for national roadway safety implementation efforts, is 
a key place to start.
    The HSIP is a core Federal-aid highway program with the purpose of 
achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on 
all public roads. See 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2). The HSIP requires a data-
driven strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public 
roads that focuses on performance. See 23 U.S.C. 148(c). The FHWA 
proposes to update the HSIP regulations to address provisions in BIL 
and reflect current priorities and state-of-practice. Specifically, 
FHWA proposes to incorporate the Safe System Approach, clarify the 
scope of a State's HSIP to focus on the safety of all road users on the 
entire public road network in support of the long-term goal to 
eliminate fatalities and serious injuries, include the vulnerable road 
user assessment as part of the State SHSP, improve evaluation 
practices, streamline reporting efforts, and ensure States are 
collecting MIRE fundamental data elements.
    The FHWA's authority to administer the HSIP is provided in 23 
U.S.C. 148. In addition, 23 U.S.C. 130 provides authority to fund the 
elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings, and 23 U.S.C. 150 
directs FHWA to establish performance measures and standards to ensure 
the effective administration of the Federal-aid highway program, 
including the HSIP. Section 150 of title 23, U.S.C., also requires each 
State to set and report on performance targets in relation to the 
performance measures developed by FHWA.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    The proposed regulatory text follows the same format and section 
titles currently in 23 CFR part 924. The FHWA proposes changes in each 
section as follows.

Section 924.1 Purpose

    The FHWA proposes to revise Sec.  924.1 to state that the purpose 
of the regulation is to set forth requirements for the planning 
(instead of development) of a HSIP, as well as the requirements for the 
reporting of the HSIP in each State for consistency with the existing 
structure of the regulation.

Section 924.3 Definitions

    The FHWA proposes to revise five definitions to provide clarity or 
consistency for each as related to the regulation.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition for the term ``Highway 
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP),'' as used in part 924, to clarify 
that the purpose of the program is to significantly reduce fatalities 
and serious injuries, consistent with the statutory purpose of the 
program. See 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2). The FHWA also proposes revisions to 
the HSIP definition to emphasize that these significant reductions 
should be continuous and that the program supports the long-term goal 
to eliminate such fatalities and serious injuries, consistent with the 
Safe System Approach principle that any deaths and serious injuries on 
public roads are unacceptable. States carry out the HSIP's purpose by 
funding projects each year that advance safety. The FHWA believes it is 
important to encourage States to continue to seek reductions in traffic 
fatalities and serious injuries year after year, which will support the 
ultimate goal of having zero fatalities and serious injuries.
    To be clear, FHWA is not requiring that States eliminate all 
roadway fatalities and serious injuries, nor is FHWA proposing to hold 
States accountable for not eliminating all roadway fatalities and 
serious injuries. Instead, FHWA is emphasizing that achieving the 
national goal of a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 
serious injuries on all public roads, which is the purpose of the HSIP, 
is ultimately a goal of reducing the incidence of fatalities and 
serious injuries to zero.
    The FHWA also proposes to clarify that, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 
148, the HSIP applies to all road users, in addition to all public 
roads. The existing regulation says this in some places but not all.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``highway safety 
improvement project'' to clarify that a highway safety improvement 
project includes strategies, activities or projects for all road users. 
While the definition of ``highway safety improvement project'' in 23 
U.S.C. 148(a)(4) does not mention ``all road users,'' it does require 
that all highway safety improvement projects correct or improve a 
hazardous road location or feature or address a highway safety problem. 
The FHWA believes that hazardous roadway location and features and 
highway safety problems may impact the safety of any road user and, 
therefore, to achieve HSIP's purpose of significantly reducing 
fatalities and serious injuries, all road users need to be considered 
in the implementation of highway safety improvement projects.
    The FHWA also proposes to revise this definition to ensure that 
highway safety improvement projects advance a Safe System Approach. The 
FHWA views the Safe System Approach, as defined further below, as a 
means to ensure that highway safety improvement projects correct or 
improve a high-risk road location or feature or address a highway 
safety need. See 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A).
    After consultation with States, FHWA also proposes minor technical 
edits to the definition to replace ``hazardous'' with ``high risk'' and 
``safety problem'' with ``safety need''. Lastly, FHWA proposes to 
clarify that highway safety improvement projects include one or more of 
the projects listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B). Section 148(e)(3)(C)(i) 
of title 23, U.S.C., requires ``specified safety projects,'' which are 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11), to meet all requirements under 23 
U.S.C. 148 that apply to highway safety improvement projects. For 
clarity, when the term highway safety improvement project is used in 
this regulation, it refers to both highway safety improvement projects 
under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) and specified safety projects under 23 U.S.C.

[[Page 13003]]

148(a)(11) as the same requirements apply to both.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``railway-highway 
crossing protective device'' to replace ``track circuit improvements'' 
in the current regulation with ``track circuitry.'' The current 
regulations suggest that ``track circuit improvements'' are an example 
of a system component associated with traffic control devices. The FHWA 
is making this revision to make clear that the component associated 
with traffic control devices is the track circuitry itself.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``safety data'' to 
clarify that it also applies to all road users, as reducing traffic 
fatalities and serious injuries through the use of safety data requires 
a consideration of all affected road users. The FHWA also proposes to 
clarify that safety data also includes crash and exposure data for non-
motorized users consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(vi), which 
requires States to improve the collection of data on non-motorized 
crashes as part of their HSIP.
    The FHWA proposes to revise the definition of ``safety 
stakeholder'' to include representatives from public health agencies 
and underserved communities. The FHWA proposes to include public health 
agencies to emphasize that road traffic crashes are not only a traffic 
safety problem, but also a public health problem. In the U.S., motor 
vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death, and kill approximately 
106 people every day. Public health agencies have implemented various 
injury prevention programs and initiatives and their input would add 
value to the SHSP update process. The FHWA also proposes to include 
representatives from underserved communities to ensure that the needs 
of all road users are represented in the planning, implementation, and 
evaluation of the HSIP, where appropriate. As described in the National 
Roadway Safety Strategy, underserved communities such as racial 
minorities and communities with higher poverty rates suffer from 
disproportionately higher rates of roadway fatalities compared to the 
overall population.\8\ Including members of underserved communities 
within the definition of safety stakeholder aligns with the statutory 
requirements regarding the SHSP, including the requirements that it 
consider high-fatality segments of public roads and describe a program 
of strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards. See 23 U.S.C. 
148(a)(13)(D) and (a)(13)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ National Roadway Safety Strategy, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA further proposes to add seven new definitions of terms 
used in the revised regulation.
    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``non-motorized 
user'' because it is used in several places throughout the existing 
regulation. The proposed definition is synonymous with the definition 
of ``vulnerable road user'' that was added by BIL at 23 U.S.C. 
148(a)(15), which includes the types of road users described by the 
definitions for ``number of non-motorized fatalities'' and ``number of 
non-motorized serious injuries'' in 23 CFR 490.205, i.e., pedestrian, 
bicyclist, other cyclist, or person on personal conveyance.
    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``road user'' 
because it would be used more frequently in the proposed updates to the 
regulation. The term ``road user'' is defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as 
``a motorist, passenger, public transportation operator or user, truck 
driver, bicyclist, motorcyclist, or pedestrian, including a person with 
disabilities.'' The definition proposed for inclusion in Sec.  924.3 
substitutes the words ``non-motorized user'' for ``pedestrian'' and 
``bicyclist'' because ``non-motorized user,'' as defined in this NPRM, 
is more inclusive of the full range of people who use the Nation's 
roads. The FHWA does not view the definition of ``road user'' in 23 
U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as limiting the type of road users who the HSIP is 
supposed to benefit to the listed groups. Such an interpretation would 
mean that a program whose purpose is to achieve a significant reduction 
in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads would 
not necessarily consider certain types of individuals who may be 
involved in traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Instead, for the 
purpose of this regulation, FHWA is interpreting ``bicyclist'' and 
``pedestrian'' as used in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) as referring generally to 
``non-motorized users.'' This interpretation will include non-motorized 
users, such as users of micromobility devices, who may not be 
considered ``bicyclists'' or ``pedestrians'' under strict readings of 
those terms but who are equally affected by highway safety problems. In 
addition, as noted above, BIL added the term ``vulnerable road user'' 
to 23 U.S.C. 148(a), and the proposed rule also uses the term ``non-
motorized user'' synonymously with ``vulnerable road user.'' The FHWA 
believes that it is appropriate to interpret the statute's reference to 
``pedestrian'' and ``bicyclist'' in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) to include the 
full range of non-motorized road users because the definition of ``road 
user'' at 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(8) necessarily encompasses ``vulnerable road 
user,'' which includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized 
users.
    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``Safe System 
Approach.'' As discussed above, the Safe System Approach aims to 
eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users through a 
holistic view of the road system that first, anticipates human mistakes 
and second, keeps impact energy on the human body at tolerable levels. 
Adopting the Safe System Approach provides a substantial opportunity to 
eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the Nation's roads and achieve 
the purpose of the HSIP. As stated in 23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2), the purpose 
of the HSIP is to ``achieve a significant reduction in traffic 
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads,'' which, if 
successfully implemented over time, should lead to the elimination of 
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
    The FHWA believes that the Safe System Approach, as defined in the 
proposed rule, is a data-driven, holistic approach to safety that best 
achieves the HSIP's purpose. The FHWA's proposed definition aligns with 
the usage of that term in the NRSS, which describes an existing and 
widely understood approach to safety, rather than the definition of 
``Safe System approach'' in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9), which refers to a type 
of roadway design for the purpose of the Vulnerable Road User Safety 
Assessment. The proposed definition of ``Safe System Approach'' in 
Sec.  924.3, however, is not inconsistent with and would not impact the 
definition of ``Safe System approach'' in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9) for the 
purposes of conducting a Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment.
    Because FHWA is proposing to revise the definition of ``highway 
safety improvement project'' to include specified safety projects, FHWA 
proposes to add a definition for the term ``specified safety project,'' 
which would have the same meaning as that term is defined in 23 U.S.C. 
148(a)(11).
    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``systemwide 
safety risk assessment.'' This term would be incorporated into this 
regulation, as described in proposed changes to Sec.  924.9. For the 
purposes of this regulation, the term systemwide safety risk assessment 
means a framework to assign risk ratings to all public roads 
considering primarily roadway characteristics, and other

[[Page 13004]]

safety data and analysis results, as appropriate. The risk ratings 
shall classify all sections of the roadway network in no fewer than 
three categories according to their level of safety. The FHWA believes 
that a classification framework with at least three levels of safety is 
needed to provide a meaningful way for States to distinguish between 
different safety levels to support prioritization of projects that best 
improve safety. Such a framework is consistent with the requirements in 
23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(v) that States have in place a safety data 
system that allows for the identification of highway safety improvement 
projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, 
or other data-supported means so a State can consider which projects 
maximize opportunities to advance safety. It is also consistent with 
the requirements for the SHSP in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(B) to analyze and 
make effective use of State, regional, local, or Tribal safety data and 
section 148(a)(13)(D) to consider the safety needs of, and high-
fatality segments of, all public roads. This classification framework 
may be as simple as high-medium-low, indicating the risk for potential 
future crashes, or a star rating system similar to the Roadway Safety 
Foundation's United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP),\9\ which 
uses a 5-star rating scale for roads, with 1-star indicating the 
highest risk. The FHWA welcomes feedback on the appropriate number of 
categories for the risk ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ usRAP [verbar] United States Road Assessment Program, http://www.usrap.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to add a definition for the term ``underserved 
communities'' to emphasize the importance of equity in the HSIP. As 
discussed above and explained in the NRSS, underserved communities face 
disproportionate safety impacts. Eliminating traffic fatalities and 
serious injuries therefore requires a commitment to considering equity. 
The definition of ``underserved community'' is consistent with how that 
term is defined in E.O. 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support 
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See E.O. 13985 of Jan. 20, 2021, Advancing Racial Equity 
and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal 
Government, Sec.  2, 86 FR 7009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to add the term ``vulnerable road user safety 
assessment,'' which adopts the definition of that term in 23 U.S.C. 
148(a)(16). This is a new requirement under BIL and would be 
incorporated into this regulation in proposed changes to Sec.  924.9.
    The FHWA proposes to retain all other definitions unchanged.

Section 924.5 Policy

    The FHWA proposes to revise paragraph 924.5(a) to state that ``Each 
State shall plan [instead of develop], implement, evaluate, as well as 
report. . .'' to mirror the structure of 23 CFR 924.9 through 924.15. 
The FHWA also proposes to require States to advance a Safe System 
Approach as part of the State's HSIP. The adoption of a Safe System 
Approach in State HSIPs supports the Department's NRSS key action to 
improve State strategic highway safety plans and ensure that State 
safety performance targets demonstrate constant or improved performance 
for each safety performance measure.\11\ The FHWA views the Safe System 
Approach as the optimal approach to safety that can guide how States 
view safety throughout the HSIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NRSS, p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FHWA proposes to revise the policy statement under 
paragraph (a) to emphasize that the objective of the State's HSIP 
supports the long-term goal to eliminate fatalities and serious 
injuries. The FHWA also proposes, for the reasons explained above, to 
clarify that the HSIP applies to all road users in addition to all 
public roads.
    The FHWA proposes to revise paragraph (b) to clarify that HSIP 
funds shall be used, rather than should be used, to maximize 
opportunities to advance highway safety improvement projects that have 
the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway fatalities and 
serious injuries. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(v), States must consider 
which projects maximize opportunities to advance safety. At the same 
time, under 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C)(ii), States must adopt strategic and 
performance-based goals that focus resources on areas of greatest need. 
The FHWA interprets these provisions in unison as requiring States to 
focus resources on projects that maximize opportunities to advance 
safety.
    In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes minor technical edits to the first 
sentence to clarify that the policy statement in this paragraph, which 
elaborates on the statement in 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(2)(B), applies to any 
other Federal-aid program and updates the title of the Surface 
Transportation Block Grant Program for consistency with the name used 
in current legislation.
    The FHWA proposes a minor technical edit to paragraph (d) to 
clarify that Tribal and local jurisdictions are distinct categories of 
governmental entities.

Section 924.7 Program Structure

    The FHWA proposes to redesignate existing paragraph 924.7(b) as 
paragraph (c) and inserting a new paragraph (b) that would clarify the 
relationship between the safety performance targets and performance-
based goals in the SHSP. Specifically, the safety performance targets 
must align with and support the SHSP performance-based goals, as is 
currently required in 23 CFR 490.209(a).
    In paragraph (c) (as redesignated), besides a minor technical edit, 
FHWA proposes to clarify in the first sentence that a State's HSIP must 
apply to all road users. Similar to what is stated above, FHWA believes 
that the purpose of the HSIP can only be carried out by addressing all 
road users, as traffic fatalities and serious injuries can occur to any 
road user. The FHWA also proposes to clarify that the State shall not 
only have HSIP processes, but those processes shall be documented and 
approved by the FHWA Division Administrator. The FHWA proposes this 
change to improve stewardship and oversight of the program. This 
proposed change is also consistent with the requirement for the 
Division Administrator to approve the SHSP update process pursuant to 
existing 23 CFR 924.9(a)(3)(iii).

Section 924.9 Planning

    In paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), FHWA proposes to add ``and for all 
road users'' to the end to clarify that the process for collecting 
safety data and advancing safety data collection efforts shall address 
all road users, in addition to all public roads. The HSIP requires a 
data-driven, strategic approach to improve highway safety on all public 
roads. The FHWA believes that this can only be achieved by considering 
data on all those who use public roads.
    In paragraph (a)(1), FHWA proposes to add a new subparagraph 
structure (i) through (iii). Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would require 
safety data to be able to differentiate between vulnerable road users 
other road users under subparagraph (i)(A), consistent with 23 U.S.C. 
148(c)(2)(A)(vi), and also disaggregate safety data by demographic 
variables to support the inclusion of equity in the State's HSIP in 
subparagraph (i)(B).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require States to collect any 
additional roadway data beyond the MIRE fundamental data elements, if 
necessary to support the proposed systemwide

[[Page 13005]]

safety risk assessment. While States can conduct a systemwide risk 
assessment with the MIRE fundamental data elements and other asset-
related data, other roadway data would add value to the process.
    The language in proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) is unchanged from 
the existing rule.
    The FHWA proposes various updates to the SHSP provisions in 
paragraph (a)(3). Under 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1) and 148(d)(2)(B), FHWA is 
authorized to establish requirements for the contents of SHSP updates 
and State's processes for updating the SHSP.
    In the introductory language to paragraph (a)(3) and in proposed 
paragraph (a)(3)(vi), FHWA proposes a minor technical edit to change 
``safety problem'' to ``safety need.'' The FHWA also proposes to 
require the SHSP update to include a signature and effective date in 
paragraph (a)(3)(iv). The effective date would also be referenced in 
paragraph (a)(3)(i) to clarify that the timeline for updating the SHSP. 
Section 924.9(a)(3)(i) of 23 CFR currently requires that an SHSP update 
must be completed no later than 5 years from the date of the previous 
approved version. The FHWA believes that a reference to ``5 years from 
the date of the previous approved version'' is not clear, and FHWA is 
revising the text to clarify that an SHSP update must be completed no 
later than 5 years from the effective date of the previous approved 
version. To implement this change, FHWA is requiring that the SHSP 
update include an effective date, which FHWA is proposing to make in 23 
CFR 924.9(a)(3)(iv). The FHWA is also proposing to require the 
signature of the Governor of a State or a responsible State official 
that is delegated by the Governor. The signature demonstrates approval 
as required by 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(H), and including an effective date 
will enable better tracking of SHSP updates.
    In proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v), FHWA proposes to clarify that the 
performance-based goals must be adopted for the duration of the SHSP. 
For example, if the SHSP covers a 5-year period, then the SHSP 
performance-based goals would also cover a 5-year period. Connecting 
the duration of performance-based goals to the duration of the overall 
SHSP is consistent with the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(B) for 
the SHSP to analyze and make effective use of State, regional, local, 
or Tribal safety data. In addition, the current provision only requires 
States to adopt performance-based goals that are consistent with safety 
performance measures established by FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
150 without acknowledging that SHSPs cover multiple years. The FHWA is 
proposing this revision to rectify this issue.
    The FHWA proposes changes to paragraphs (a)(3)(vi) through 
(a)(3)(xi) to advance the Safe System Approach and ensure equity is 
addressed in SHSP updates. Specifically, in paragraph (a)(3)(vi) FHWA 
proposes to emphasize that the analysis and use of safety data also 
addresses safety needs and opportunities in underserved communities to 
ensure the safety needs of all road users are met. Ensuring that SHSP 
updates address the safety needs of underserved communities is 
necessary to implement 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(B)(ii)-(iii), which require 
that SHSP updates take into consideration the locations of fatalities 
and serious injuries and locations that possess risk factors for 
potential crashes (regardless of whether there is a documented history 
of fatalities and serious injuries). Further, paragraph (a)(3)(vi) 
currently requires that an SHSP update must ``[a]nalyze and make 
effective use of safety data to address safety problems and 
opportunities on all public roads and for all road users.'' The FHWA is 
proposing this revision to highlight that ``all road users,'' as used 
in the current regulations, must necessarily include road users in 
underserved communities.
    In paragraph (a)(3)(vii), FHWA proposes to require that SHSP 
emphasis areas and strategies are consistent with the Safe System 
Approach. A key aspect of the SHSP is that it evaluates highway safety 
holistically to identify which strategies and projects can best advance 
the goal of eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. See 23 
U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(C) (defining the SHSP, in part, as a plan that 
``addresses engineering, management, operation, education, enforcement, 
and emergency services elements . . . of highway safety as key factors 
in evaluating highway safety.''). This corresponds to the Safe System 
Approach's focus on holistically integrating the elements of safe road 
users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care to 
reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries to zero. In addition, 
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) currently requires that an SHSP update must 
``[i]dentify key emphasis areas and strategies that have the greatest 
potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries and focus 
resources on areas of greatest need.'' The FHWA believes that the Safe 
System Approach provides the appropriate framework to determine what 
``greatest potential'' and ``greatest need'' mean.
    The FHWA proposes to add equity to the list of elements to address 
as a key feature in the identification of SHSP strategies in paragraph 
(a)(3)(viii). This will ensure that the SHSP considers the safety needs 
of all public roads and considers the results of State and regional 
planning processes, which must consider the needs of underserved 
communities. See 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(D)-(E); 23 CFR 
450.210(a)(1)(viii) and 450.316(a)(1)(vii).
    The FHWA also proposes to add a new requirement under proposed 
paragraph (a)(3)(ix) for States to describe in the SHSP update how the 
SHSP supports a Safe System Approach. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 
148(d)(1)(B)(viii), FHWA must ensure that States take into 
consideration, with respect to updated SHSPs, safety on all public 
roads. The FHWA is proposing to carry out this requirement, in part, by 
having States identify key emphasis areas and strategies that are 
consistent with a Safe System Approach and describing how the SHSP 
supports a Safe System Approach, as FHWA considers the Safe System 
Approach to be the optimal method for considering safety.
    The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (a)(3)(x) to include the 
vulnerable road user safety assessment as part of the State SHSP, 
consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(G). The FHWA proposes to modify 
redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(xi) (current paragraph (a)(3)(ix)) to 
require public involvement as part of the SHSP update process. Public 
involvement would help ensure the needs of all road users are addressed 
in the SHSP update and, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(I), 
ensure the SHSP is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 135(g), which includes a 
requirement for public involvement in the development of the Statewide 
Transportation Improvement Plan.
    In redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(xii) (current paragraph 
(a)(3)(x)), FHWA proposes to separate Tribal from local governments 
since they are distinct units of government. The FHWA also proposes to 
clarify that the SHSP update shall provide strategic direction for not 
only other State, Tribal, and local plans as stated in the current 
regulation, but also programs such as the HSIP because the HSIP is a 
program, not a plan. The FHWA also proposes to add a Traffic Records 
Strategic Plan (TRSP) to the list of plans and programs for which the 
SHSP update provides strategic direction. A TRSP describes the desired 
future of the data systems a State uses to support data driven safety 
decisions

[[Page 13006]]

and how to get there.\12\ Many State SHSPs include a data emphasis area 
and include relevant strategies and actions that could be advanced 
through the TRSP. Including the TSRP in the list of plans that the SHSP 
must provide strategic direction to furthers the requirement in 23 
U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C) that a State HSIP advances the State's capabilities 
for safety data collection, analysis, and integration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NHTSA, State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee 
Strategic Planning Guide (2019), p. viii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to relocate existing paragraph (a)(3)(xi) to 
Sec.  924.11(c)(i) because it is more relevant to implementation. 
Proposed revisions to this language are discussed under the heading for 
Sec.  924.11.
    In paragraph (a)(4), FHWA proposes to require States to develop a 
process to conduct a systemwide safety risk assessment to implement 23 
U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B). That provision requires States to (i) identify 
hazardous locations, sections, and elements that constitute a danger to 
motorists, vulnerable road users, and other highway users; (ii) 
establish the relative severity of those locations; (iii) identify the 
number of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by 
location in the State; (iv) identify highway safety improvement 
projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, 
or other data-supported means; and (v) consider which projects maximize 
opportunities to advance safety. Requiring a systemwide safety risk 
assessment aligns with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B), as it would require 
States to assign risk ratings to all public roads after considering 
safety data. The systemwide safety risk assessment would allow States 
to establish a base level of safety performance for all roads (23 
U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(i), (iii)), develop safety infrastructure key 
performance indicators (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(ii)), and prioritize 
investments to improve safety through not only the State HSIP but all 
Federal-aid programs and projects (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(iv), (v)).
    The FHWA also proposes to revise paragraph (a)(4)(i) to emphasize 
that the program of highway safety improvement projects would need to 
have the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries 
on all public roads and for all road users, consistent with the Safe 
System Approach for similar reasons as described above for the proposed 
changes to Sec.  924.5(b).
    Consistent with changes described above for proposed paragraphs 
(a)(3)(vii) and (viii), FHWA also proposes adding a new statement to 
require that the program of highway safety improvement projects shall 
advance the Safe System Approach and address fatalities and serious 
injuries in underserved communities to advance equity.
    The remainder of paragraph (a)(4) and paragraph (a)(5) remains 
unchanged.
    In paragraph (a)(6), FHWA proposes revising existing item (i) to 
require States to consider which projects maximize the potential 
reduction of fatalities and serious injuries as part of their process 
for establishing priorities for implementing highway safety improvement 
projects consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(v). The FHWA also 
proposes removing existing item (iii), which currently requires States 
to consider SHSP priorities in their process for establishing 
priorities for implementing highway safety improvement projects because 
all projects must be consistent with the SHSP. This item is more 
related to eligibility than prioritization. Prioritization of highway 
safety improvement projects would be based on which projects maximize 
the potential reduction in fatalities and serious injuries and the cost 
effectiveness of the projects and the resources available.
    Paragraphs (b) and (c) would remain unchanged.

Section 924.11 Implementation

    Paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) would remain unchanged.
    In paragraph (b), FHWA proposes to remove the requirement that 
States shall incorporate specific quantifiable and measurable 
anticipated improvements for the collection of MIRE fundamental data 
elements into their Traffic Records Strategic Plan by July 1, 2017, 
since the date for that requirement has passed. The FHWA also proposes 
to require each State to submit the MIRE fundamental data elements as 
part of their regular Highway Performance Monitoring System 
submissions, beginning after September 30, 2026, and continuing 
thereafter. The FHWA would expect each State to submit new data as it 
becomes available or on a schedule of the State's selection. There 
would be no expectation for States to update this data annually. This 
requirement would help FHWA ensure that States adopt and use the subset 
of MIRE fundamental data elements per 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2)(B).
    In paragraph (c), FHWA proposes to relocate and revise the 
requirement from existing Sec.  924.9(a)(3)(xi) to be consistent with 
existing FHWA guidance and the current state-of-practice for the SHSP 
action plans.
    In paragraph (d), FHWA proposes minor technical edits to better 
track the language in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2).
    The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (g) to encourage States to 
use the various options available to them to streamline delivery of 
highway safety improvement projects. It is imperative that highway 
safety improvement projects be completed in a timely manner to realize 
their benefits.
    The FHWA also proposes to redesignate existing paragraph (g) as new 
paragraph (h) without change.

Section 924.13 Evaluation

    Under Sec.  924.13(a), FHWA proposes to add new subparagraph (a)(1) 
that requires a State's HSIP evaluation process to include a process to 
evaluate the effectiveness of data improvement activities for MIRE 
fundamental data elements. The FHWA proposes this requirement to 
address 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(ii), which requires the State's safety 
data system to evaluate the effectiveness of data improvement efforts. 
This provision would apply only to MIRE fundamental data elements since 
that is a specific requirement of the HSIP under 23 U.S.C. 
148(f)(2)(B). States would be required to establish and track 
quantifiable measures related to data quality attributes of accuracy, 
completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and integration.
    The FHWA proposes minor technical modifications to what would be 
redesignated as paragraph (a)(2) (current paragraph (a)(1)) to clarify 
that a State must have processes for evaluating individual highway 
safety improvement projects and countermeasures, as well as a process 
for evaluating the program of highway safety improvement projects. This 
is not an additional requirement but a clarification of an existing 
one. The existing regulation requires that States have a process to 
analyze and assess the results achieved by the program of highway 
safety improvement projects; however, to assess and analyze the program 
of highway safety improvement projects, States must first assess and 
analyze the individual projects and countermeasures that make it up. 
This change is also consistent with current law, FHWA practice, and 
existing FHWA guidance. Per 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(F) and 148(h)(1)(B), 
States must have an evaluation process to analyze and assess results 
achieved by highway safety improvement projects and assess the 
effectiveness of those projects as part of their annual HSIP report.
    The FHWA proposes a minor technical modification to what would be 
redesignated as paragraph (a)(3)(i) (current paragraph (a)(2)(i)) to 
clarify that a State should be confirming the effectiveness of SHSP 
strategies as part

[[Page 13007]]

of its process for updating the SHSP. Effective implementation of the 
SHSP requires a State to understand whether a particular strategy is 
working, or if it needs to be updated for future implementation.
    Apart from minor technical edits, the remaining paragraphs in Sec.  
924.13 would remain unchanged.

Section 924.15 Reporting

    The FHWA proposes the following changes to the content of the HSIP 
report.
    In the introductory text to paragraph (a), rather than require the 
usage of a specific tool, FHWA proposes to change the reporting 
mechanism to a more general electronic template provided by FHWA. This 
gives FHWA the flexibility to use the existing HSIP online reporting 
tool, or another electronic means for States to submit reports if 
deemed more effective by FHWA.
    In paragraph (a)(1), to minimize duplication with other HSIP 
documentation efforts, FHWA proposes to change the focus of the report 
to describe progress being made to implement the HSIP and the 
effectiveness of previously completed highway safety improvement 
projects. As such, FHWA proposes to remove paragraphs (a)(1)(i), which 
currently discusses the structure of the HSIP, and (a)(1)(ii), which 
currently discusses the progress in implementing highway safety 
improvement projects. This information would be captured in the HSIP 
process documentation under Sec.  924.7(c) and, if applicable, the HSIP 
implementation plan under 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2).
    In redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) (current paragraph 
(a)(1)(iii)(A)), FHWA proposes minor technical edits to remove the word 
``total'' in the last sentence to clarify that a State must report the 
number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries separately 
because FHWA uses the serious injury data from the HSIP report to 
support the safety performance target assessment. This proposed change 
is also consistent with current reporting practice. The FHWA also 
proposes to require reporting information on fatalities and serious 
injuries for older drivers and pedestrians consistent with the special 
rule in 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(2) and existing paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C).
    The FHWA proposes to remove existing paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(B) and 
(a)(1)(iii)(C). The safety performance targets previously reported 
under existing paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) would be reported separately 
with the other performance measures required under 23 CFR part 490. 
Consistent with current guidance, to carry out the special rules in 23 
U.S.C. 148(g), FHWA only requires that States report information on the 
number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorized users and 
older drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65. By revising paragraph 
(a)(1)(i)(A) to require this information, existing paragraph 
(a)(1)(iii)(C) becomes redundant.
    The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) that would 
require a State to discuss the progress made implementing the 
priorities and actions identified in the State's HSIP implementation 
plan under 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2) for those States that did not meet or 
make significant progress toward meeting their safety performance 
targets.
    The FHWA proposes to revise redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 
(current paragraph (a)(1)(iv)) to require States to report the results 
of individual projects, countermeasures, and program evaluations. 
States are currently required to report the results of countermeasure 
and program evaluations on an aggregated basis (i.e., groupings or 
similar types of highway safety improvement projects). This revision 
would also require States to report the results of individual project 
evaluations. While it is currently optional for States to report this 
information, nearly half of the States already do so, and, as noted 
above when discussing proposed changes to Sec.  924.13(a)(2), all 
States are necessarily required to have processes in place for 
individual project evaluations. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(h), FHWA is 
responsible for establishing the content of State reporting on the 
effectiveness of States' HSIPs, including reporting on the 
effectiveness of projects funded under section 148, and making this 
reporting available to the public in the interests of transparency. 
Requiring States to report information for individual projects will 
help FHWA ensure States are meeting this requirement, emphasize the 
importance of monitoring the effectiveness of HSIP implementation 
efforts, and support national program evaluations.
    The FHWA proposes to add new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) for States to 
report on results from the new provision in Sec.  924.13(a)(1). 
Specifically, each State would be required to report quantifiable 
progress in the quality attributes of accuracy, completeness, 
timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and integration of MIRE 
fundamental data elements.
    Lastly, FHWA proposes to make technical amendments to paragraph 
(a)(1)(iv) to match the structure of revised paragraph (a)(1) and to 
correct an error in a statutory citation. The remaining provisions in 
Sec.  924.15 would remain unchanged.

Section 924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements

    The FHWA proposes to add language to clarify the exception in 23 
U.S.C. 148(k) to MIRE fundamental data element collection requirements, 
which states that, subject to the conditions of 23 U.S.C. 148(k)(1), 
``[a] State may elect not to collect fundamental data elements for the 
model inventory of roadway elements on public roads that are gravel 
roads or otherwise unpaved.'' The FHWA also proposes to simplify the 
presentation of tables 1, 2, and 3 in the regulation. In general, the 
content in the tables would remain the same except for citation updates 
to reference MIRE Version 2.0, or the most current version.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The FHWA may issue updates to MIRE between the time that 
this NPRM and a Final Rule are issued. The tables in the Final Rule 
will reference the most current version of MIRE at the time the 
Final Rule is issued. The FHWA does not anticipate that changes that 
may be made to MIRE as a result of any updates will have a 
substantive impact in terms of complying with 23 CFR part 924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

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

    The FHWA anticipates that the proposed rule will not be a 
significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, as 
amended by E.O. 14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), and DOT 
Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures in DOT Order 2100.6A (June 7, 2021). 
This action complies with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 to improve 
regulation. The FHWA anticipates that the proposed rule would not have 
an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. The FHWA 
anticipates that the proposed rule would not adversely affect, in a 
material way, any sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, 
territorial, or Tribal governments or communities. In addition, these 
changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another 
agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. The proposed rule 
also does not raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review 
would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
set forth E.O. 12866.

[[Page 13008]]

    The following paragraphs summarize the economic analysis for this 
proposed rule. A supporting statement and a spreadsheet in the 
rulemaking docket (FHWA-2023-0045) contain additional details. The FHWA 
requests data and comments that could inform the economic analysis for 
this proposed rule, including any estimates of resulting benefits.
    Table 1 summarizes the economic impacts of the proposed rule that 
were able to be quantified at this stage of the regulatory process. The 
quantifiable impacts are the costs and cost savings that the proposed 
rule would impose on States and on FHWA. The FHWA estimated the costs 
of the proposed rule at $64.9 million for the 10-year period, or $9.2 
million on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars and using a 7 
percent discount rate. If a 3 percent discount rate is used, these 
costs are estimated at $70.3 million for the same 10-year period, or 
$8.2 million on an annual basis, again measured in 2022 dollars. The 
FHWA estimated the cost savings of the proposed rule at $227,442, or 
$32,383 on an annual basis, measured in 2022 dollars and using 7 
percent discounting. If a 3 percent discount rate is used, these cost 
savings are estimated at $276,230 for the same 10-year period, or 
$32,383 on an annual basis, again measured in 2022 dollars. Based on 
the estimated economic impacts and the other criteria for a significant 
regulatory action under Sec.  3(f) of E.O. 12866, FHWA has 
preliminarily determined that this proposed rule would not be a 
significant regulatory action.

  Table 1--Estimated Costs, Cost Savings, and Net Costs of the Highway Safety Improvement Program Proposed Rule
                                                 [2022 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Costs of the HSIP proposed rule (2022 dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Analysis
                  Calendar year                     period year        Costs       Cost savings      Net costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024............................................               1     $57,057,401         $32,383     $57,025,018
2025............................................               2         108,615          32,383          76,232
2026............................................               3       1,764,627          32,383       1,732,244
2027............................................               4         108,615          32,383          76,232
2028............................................               5       7,946,874          32,383       7,914,491
2029............................................               6         108,615          32,383          76,232
2030............................................               7         108,615          32,383          76,232
2031............................................               8         108,615          32,383          76,232
2032............................................               9         108,615          32,383          76,232
2033............................................              10       7,946,874          32,383       7,914,491
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total to FHWA...............................................         244,363          47,824         196,539
    Total to State DOTs.........................................      75,123,101         276,002      74,847,098
    Undiscounted Total..........................................      75,367,464         323,826      75,043,638
    Total with 3% Discounting...................................      70,325,827         276,230      70,049,597
    Total with 7% Discounting...................................      64,910,972         227,442      64,683,530
    Average Annual (Undiscounted)...............................       7,536,746          32,383       7,504,364
    Annualized, 3% Discount Rate, 10 Years......................       8,244,332          32,383       8,211,950
    Annualized, 7% Discount Rate, 10 Years......................       9,241,862          32,383       9,209,479
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main purpose of the HSIP is to achieve significant reductions 
in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. Changes 
resulting from the proposed rule are expected to increase safety and 
result in fewer traffic related injuries and fatalities. In accordance 
with OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003), FHWA 
follows a break-even analysis approach to calculate the number of 
annual lives that need to be saved for the benefits of the proposed 
rule to outweigh the costs. The break-even analysis concludes that a 
single life saved annually justifies the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule 
on small entities and has determined that the action is not anticipated 
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed rule affects State governments, and State 
governments do not meet the definition of a small entity. Therefore, 
FHWA certifies that the action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA has evaluated this proposed rule for unfunded mandates as 
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). 
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us 
to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated 
impacts, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate 
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 
million, using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the 
Gross Domestic Product. As part of this evaluation, FHWA has determined 
that this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of greater than $183 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C. 
1532).
    Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed 
in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, 
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. In addition, the 
definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or 
Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the 
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal

[[Page 13009]]

Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of 
flexibility.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

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

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

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

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. 
Local entities should refer to the Assistance Listing Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) prior to conducting or sponsoring a 
``collection of information'' as defined by the PRA. The FHWA currently 
has OMB approval under ``Highway Safety Improvement Programs'' (OMB 
Control No. 2125-0025) to collect the information required by State's 
annual HSIP reports. The FHWA also has OMB approval under ``Highway 
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)'' (OMB Control No. 2125-0028). The 
FHWA invites comments about the intention to request OMB approval for a 
new information collection to include the components required in this 
NPRM. Any action that might be contemplated in subsequent phases of 
this proceeding will be analyzed for the purpose of the PRA for its 
impact to this current information collection. The FHWA will submit the 
proposed collections of information to OMB for review and approval at 
the time the NPRM is issued and, accordingly, seeks comments.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has 
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23 
CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of regulations, 
and that no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

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

Regulation Identification Number

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 924

    Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor vehicles, Railroads, 
Railroad safety, Safety, Transportation.

Shailen P. Bhatt,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, FHWA proposes to revise 
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 924, as follows:

PART 924--HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 924 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, 150, and 315; 49 CFR 
1.85.

0
2. Revise Sec.  924.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  924.1   Purpose.

    The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the 
planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of a Highway Safety 
Improvement Program (HSIP) in each State.
0
3. Amend Sec.  924.3 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Highway Safety Improvement Program 
(HSIP)'', and ``Highway safety improvement project'';
0
b. Adding a definition of ``Non-motorized user or vulnerable road 
user'' in alphabetical order;
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Railway-highway crossing protective 
devices'';
0
d. Adding the definitions of ``Road user'' and ``Safe System Approach'' 
in alphabetical order;
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Safety data'';
0
f. In the definition of ``Safety stakeholder'', redesignating paragraph 
(10) as paragraph (12) and adding paragraphs (10) and (11); and
0
g. Adding the definitions of ``Specified safety project'', ``Systemwide 
safety risk assessment'', ``Underserved communities'', and ``Vulnerable 
road user safety assessment'' in alphabetical order.
    The revisions and additions read as follows: Sec.  924.3 
Definitions.
* * * * *
    Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) means a State safety 
program with the purpose to significantly reduce fatalities and serious 
injuries on all public roads and for all road users, in support of the 
long-term goal to eliminate such fatalities and serious injuries, 
through the implementation of the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130, 148, and 
150, including the development of a data-driven Strategic

[[Page 13010]]

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and 
program of highway safety improvement projects.
    Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities, or 
projects on a public road and for all road users that advance a Safe 
System Approach, are consistent with a State SHSP, either correct or 
improve a high risk road segment, location, or feature, or address a 
highway safety need, and are either (1) one or more of the projects 
listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B) or (2) a specified safety project.
    Non-motorized user or vulnerable road user means a pedestrian, 
bicyclist, other cyclist, or person on personal conveyance, consistent 
with the definition for the number of non-motorized fatalities and the 
number of non-motorized serious injuries in Sec.  490.205 of this 
title.
* * * * *
    Railway-highway crossing protective devices means those traffic 
control devices in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
(MUTCD) specified for use at such crossings; and system components 
associated with such traffic control devices, such as track circuitry 
and interconnections with highway traffic signals.
* * * * *
    Road user means a motorist, passenger, public transportation 
operator or user, truck driver, motorcyclist, or non-motorized user, 
including a person with disabilities.
    Safe System Approach means a data-driven, holistic approach to 
roadway safety that:
    (1) Aims to eliminate death and serious injury for all road users;
    (2) Anticipates and accommodates human errors;
    (3) Keeps crash impact energy on the human body within tolerable 
levels;
    (4) Proactively identifies safety risks in the system;
    (5) Builds in redundancy through layers of protection so if one 
part of the system fails the other parts provide protection; and
    (6) Shares responsibility for achieving zero roadway fatalities 
among all who design, build, manage, own, and use the system.
    Safety data include, but are not limited to, crash, roadway 
characteristics, and traffic data on all public roads and for all road 
users. Safety data shall include crash and exposure data for non-
motorized users. For railway-highway crossings, safety data also 
include the characteristics of highway and train traffic, licensing, 
and vehicle data.
    Safety stakeholder means, but is not limited to:
* * * * *
    (10) Representatives from public health agencies;
    (11) Representatives from underserved communities; and
    (12) Other Federal, State, Tribal, and local safety stakeholders.
    Specified safety project has the same meaning as defined under 23 
U.S.C. 148(a)(11).
* * * * *
    Systemwide safety risk assessment means a framework to assign risk 
ratings to all public roads considering primarily roadway 
characteristics, and other safety data and analysis results, as 
appropriate. The risk ratings shall classify all sections of the 
roadway network in no fewer than three categories according to their 
level of safety.
* * * * *
    Underserved communities mean populations sharing a particular 
characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been 
systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of 
economic, social, and civic life. Underserved communities include 
Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian 
Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of 
religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer 
(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural 
areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality.
    Vulnerable road user safety assessment means an assessment of the 
safety performance of the State with respect to vulnerable road users 
and the plan of the State to improve the safety of vulnerable road 
users as described in 23 U.S.C. 148(l).
0
4. Revise and republish Sec.  924.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  924.5  Policy.

    (a) Each State shall plan, implement, evaluate, and report on an 
annual basis an HSIP that advances a Safe System Approach and has the 
purpose to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries 
resulting from crashes on all public roads and for all road users, in 
support of the long-term goal to eliminate such fatalities and serious 
injuries.
    (b) HSIP funds shall be used for highway safety improvement 
projects that are consistent with the State's SHSP. HSIP funds shall be 
used to maximize opportunities to advance highway safety improvement 
projects that have the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway 
fatalities and serious injuries.
    (c) Safety improvements should be incorporated into projects funded 
by all Federal-aid programs, such as the National Highway Performance 
Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) 
Program. Safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader 
Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the 
broader project.
    (d) Eligibility for Federal funding of projects for traffic control 
devices under this part is subject to a State, Tribal, or local 
jurisdiction's substantial conformance with the National MUTCD or FHWA-
approved State MUTCDs and supplements in accordance with part 655, 
subpart F, of this chapter.
0
5. Amend Sec.  924.7 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  924.7   Program structure.

* * * * *
    (b) Part 490, subpart B of this chapter establishes national 
performance management measures for the purposes of carrying out the 
HSIP. The safety performance targets established under Sec.  490.209 of 
this chapter shall align with and support the performance-based goals 
established for the SHSP in this section.
    (c) The HSIP shall address all public roads and all road users in 
the State. The HSIP shall document separate processes for the planning, 
implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP components described in 
paragraph (a) of this section. These documented processes shall be 
developed by the State and approved by the FHWA Division Administrator 
in accordance with this section and the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. 
Where appropriate, the processes shall be developed in consultation 
with other safety stakeholders and officials of the various units of 
local and Tribal governments.
0
6. In Sec.  924.9 revise and republish paragraph (a):


Sec.  924.9   Planning.

    (a) The HSIP planning process shall incorporate:
    (1) A process for collecting and maintaining safety data on all 
public roads and for all road users.
    (i) Safety data shall:
    (A) Differentiate between vulnerable road users, including 
bicyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians, from other road users.
    (B) Be disaggregated by demographic variables to support the 
inclusion of

[[Page 13011]]

underserved communities in the State's Highway Safety Improvement 
Program.
    (ii) Roadway data shall include:
    (A) The MIRE Fundamental Data Elements as established in Sec.  
924.17; and
    (B) Any additional elements necessary to support a systemwide 
safety risk assessment.
    (iii) Railway-highway crossing data shall include all fields from 
the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.
    (2) A process for advancing the State's capabilities for safety 
data collection and analysis by improving the timeliness, accuracy, 
completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of their 
safety data on all public roads and for all road users.
    (3) A process for updating the SHSP that identifies and analyzes 
highway safety needs and opportunities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
148. A SHSP update shall:
    (i) Be completed no later than 5 years from the effective date of 
the previous approved version;
    (ii) Be developed by the State DOT in consultation with safety 
stakeholders;
    (iii) Provide a detailed description of the update process. The 
update process must be approved by the FHWA Division Administrator;
    (iv) Be approved, including signature and effective date, by the 
Governor of the State or a responsible State agency official who is 
delegated by the Governor;
    (v) Adopt performance-based goals for the duration of the SHSP 
that:
    (A) Are consistent with safety performance measures established by 
FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and
    (B) Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;
    (vi) Analyze and make effective use of safety data to address 
safety needs and opportunities on all public roads and for all road 
users, including in underserved communities;
    (vii) Identify key emphasis areas and strategies that are 
consistent with a Safe System Approach, have the greatest potential to 
reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, and focus 
resources on areas of greatest need;
    (viii) Address engineering, management, operations, education, 
enforcement, emergency services, and equity elements of highway safety 
as key features when determining SHSP strategies;
    (ix) Describe how the SHSP supports a Safe System Approach;
    (x) Include a vulnerable road user safety assessment;
    (xi) Consider the results of State, regional, local, and Tribal 
transportation and highway safety planning processes; demonstrate 
mutual consultation among safety stakeholders; and consider input from 
public involvement (as defined in Sec.  450.210 of this chapter) in the 
development of transportation safety plans; and
    (xii) Provide strategic direction for other State, Tribal, and 
local transportation plans and programs, including but not limited to 
the HSIP, the Highway Safety Plan, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan, 
and the Traffic Records Strategic Plan.
    (4) A process for analyzing safety data and conducting a systemwide 
safety risk assessment to:
    (i) Develop a program of highway safety improvement projects, in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), that has the greatest potential to 
reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads and for all 
road users through the implementation of a comprehensive program of 
systemic and spot safety improvement projects. The program of highway 
safety improvement projects shall also advance the Safe System Approach 
and address fatalities and serious injuries in underserved communities.
    (ii) Develop a Railway-Highway Crossings program that:
    (A) Considers the relative risk of public railway-highway crossings 
based on a hazard index formula;
    (B) Includes onsite inspection of public railway-highway crossings; 
and
    (C) Results in a program of highway safety improvement projects at 
railway-highway crossings giving special emphasis to the statutory 
requirement that all public crossings be provided with standard signing 
and markings.
    (5) A process for conducting engineering studies (such as road 
safety audits and other safety assessments or reviews) to develop 
highway safety improvement projects.
    (6) A process for establishing priorities for implementing highway 
safety improvement projects that considers:
    (i) Which projects maximize the potential reduction in fatalities 
and serious injuries; and
    (ii) The cost effectiveness of the projects and the resources 
available.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  924.11 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising and republishing paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h); and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (g).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  924.11  Implementation.

* * * * *
    (b) Each State shall have a complete collection of the MIRE 
fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 
Starting after September 30, 2026, and continuing thereafter, each 
State shall submit the MIRE fundamental data elements as part of their 
regular Highway Performance Monitoring System submittal to FHWA.
    (c) The SHSP shall include or be accompanied by actions that 
address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies will be implemented. This 
includes a description of the related actions or projects, agency 
responsible for implementing each action, potential resources, and 
timeframe for implementing the strategies in each emphasis area.
    (d) Funds set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program under 
23 U.S.C. 130 shall be used to implement railway-highway crossing 
safety projects on any public road. If a State demonstrates that it has 
met all its needs for installation of protective devices at railway-
highway crossings to the satisfaction of the FHWA Division 
Administrator, the State may use funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 
130 for other Highway Safety Improvement Program purposes pursuant to 
the special rule in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2).
* * * * *
    (g) States should use timesaving procedures, such as project 
bundling, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting (part 
635, subpart F of this chapter), and other methods approved by FHWA to 
streamline HSIP project delivery. States and other Federal funding 
recipients can also use agency force account procedures (part 635, 
subpart B of this chapter) if they can demonstrate it is more cost 
effective than competitive bidding.
    (h) Except as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120 and 130, the Federal share 
of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with 
funds apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) shall be 90 
percent.
0
8. Amend Sec.  924.13 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) as paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(3), respectively, and adding new paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i); and
0
c. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (b).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  924.13   Evaluation.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 13012]]

    (1) A process to establish and track quantifiable measures to 
evaluate the effectiveness of data improvement activities to improve 
accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and 
integration for MIRE fundamental data elements.
    (2) A process to analyze and assess the results achieved by 
individual highway safety improvement projects, countermeasures, and 
the program of highway safety improvement projects in terms of 
contributions to improved safety outcomes and the attainment of safety 
performance targets established as per 23 U.S.C. 150.
    (3) An evaluation of the SHSP as part of the regularly recurring 
update process to:
    (i) Confirm the validity of the emphasis areas and effectiveness of 
strategies based on analysis of current safety data; and
* * * * *
    (b) The information resulting from paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
shall be used:
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  924.15 by revising the introductory text to paragraphs 
(a) and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  924.15   Reporting.

    (a) For the period of the previous reporting year, each State shall 
submit to the FHWA Division Administrator no later than August 31 of 
each year, the following reports related to the HSIP in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 130(g) using an electronic template provided by 
FHWA:
    (1) A report describing the progress being made to implement the 
HSIP and the effectiveness of completed highway safety improvement 
projects. The report shall:
    (i) Describe the progress in achieving safety outcomes and 
performance targets. This section shall:
    (A) Provide an overview of general highway safety trends. General 
highway safety trends shall be presented by number and rate of 
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by calendar year, 
and to the maximum extent practicable, shall also be presented by 
functional classification and roadway ownership. General highway safety 
trends shall also be presented for the number of fatalities and serious 
injuries for non-motorized users and older drivers and pedestrians over 
the age of 65; and
    (B) Discuss the progress made implementing the priorities and 
actions identified in the State's HSIP implementation plan under 23 
U.S.C. 148(i)(2), if applicable.
    (ii) Assess the effectiveness of the improvements. This section 
shall describe the effectiveness of individual highway safety 
improvement projects, countermeasures, and program of highway safety 
improvement projects previously implemented under the HSIP.
    (iii) Report quantifiable progress in the quality attributes of 
accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and 
integration for the MIRE fundamental data elements.
    (iv) Be compatible with the requirements of section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d).
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  924.17 by revising the introductory text and Tables 1, 
2, and 3 to read as follows:


Sec.  924.17   MIRE fundamental data elements.

    The MIRE fundamental data elements shall be collected on all public 
roads, as listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this section, except as noted 
in 23 U.S.C. 148(k). For the purpose of MIRE fundamental data elements 
applicability, the term ``open to public travel'' shall be consistent 
with the definition in Sec.  460.2(c) of this chapter.

                      Table 1--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local \1\ Paved Roads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Interchange/
                        MIRE name \2\                          Roadway segment    Intersection         ramp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) \3\ \4\..................               X                X   ...............
AADT Year \3\ \4\............................................               X                X   ...............
Access Control \3\...........................................               X   ...............  ...............
Begin Point Segment Descriptor \3\...........................               X   ...............  ...............
End Point Segment Descriptor \3\.............................               X   ...............  ...............
Direction of Inventory.......................................               X   ...............  ...............
Federal Aid/Route Type \3\...................................               X   ...............  ...............
Functional Class \3\.........................................               X   ...............               X
Interchange Type.............................................  ...............  ...............               X
Intersection/Junction Geometry...............................  ...............               X   ...............
Intersection/Junction Traffic Control........................  ...............               X   ...............
Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point................  ...............               X   ...............
Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point................  ...............               X   ...............
Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal...  ...............  ...............               X
Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal......  ...............  ...............               X
Median Type..................................................               X   ...............  ...............
Number of Through Lanes \3\..................................               X   ...............  ...............
One/Two-Way Operations \3\...................................               X   ...............  ...............
Ramp AADT \3\................................................  ...............  ...............               X
Ramp Length..................................................  ...............  ...............               X
Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal......................  ...............  ...............               X
Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal.........................  ...............  ...............               X
Route Number \3\.............................................               X   ...............  ...............
Route/street Name \3\........................................               X   ...............  ...............
Rural/Urban Designation \3\..................................               X   ...............  ...............
Segment Identifier...........................................               X   ...............  ...............
Segment Length \3\...........................................               X   ...............  ...............
Surface Type \3\.............................................               X   ...............  ...............
Type of Governmental Ownership \3\...........................               X   ...............               X
Unique Approach Identifier (for each approach)...............  ...............               X   ...............
Unique Interchange Identifier................................  ...............  ...............               X
Unique Junction Identifier...................................  ...............               X   ...............

[[Page 13013]]

 
Year of Ramp AADT \3\........................................  ...............  ...............               X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on functional classification.
\2\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-17-048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49568.
\3\ Existing Highway Performance Monitoring System element.
\4\ For each intersecting road.


    Table 2--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Local \1\ Paved Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Roadway
                        MIRE name \2\                           segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AADT \3\....................................................          X
Begin Point Segment Descriptor \3\..........................          X
End Point Segment Descriptor \3\............................          X
Functional Class \3\........................................          X
Number of Through Lanes \3\.................................          X
Rural/Urban Designation \3\.................................          X
Segment Identifier..........................................          X
Surface Type \3\............................................          X
Type of Governmental Ownership \3\..........................          X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on Functional Classification.
\2\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No.
  FHWA-SA-17-048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49568.
\3\ Existing Highway Performance Monitoring System element.


        Table 3--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Unpaved Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Roadway
                        MIRE name \1\                           segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Point Segment Descriptor \2\..........................          X
End Point Segment Descriptor \2\............................          X
Functional Class \2\........................................          X
Segment Identifier..........................................          X
Type of Governmental Ownership \2\..........................          X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 2.0, Report No.
  FHWA-SA-17-048, July 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49568.
\2\ Existing Highway Performance Monitoring System element.

[FR Doc. 2024-02831 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P