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

Federal RegisterJan 5, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 490

[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0053]

RIN 2125-AF53

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

AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION:

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

SUMMARY:

Section 1203 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) declared that performance management will transform the Federal-aid highway program and refocus it on national transportation goals, increase accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program and improve project decisionmaking through performance-based planning and programming. Section 1203 of MAP-21 identifies the national transportation goals and requires the Secretary to promulgate a rule to establish performance measures in specified Federal-aid highway program areas. The FHWA is issuing three separate NPRMs to meet this requirement, and this is the second NPRM.

This NPRM proposes to establish measures for State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) to use to carry out the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and to assess the condition of the following: pavements on the National Highway System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate System), bridges on the NHS, and pavements on the Interstate System. The NHPP is a core Federal-aid highway program that provides support for the condition and performance of the NHS and the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and ensures that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's asset management plan for the NHS. This NPRM proposes regulations for the new performance aspects of the NHPP, which address: measures, targets, and reporting. The FHWA intends to make these performance aspects of the NHPP available to the public in a format that is easily understandable and accessible for download.

This second NPRM also includes a discussion of the collective rulemaking actions FHWA has or intends to take to implement MAP-21 performance-related provisions.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by the docket number FHWA USDOT-2013-0053 by any one of the following methods:

Fax: 1-202-493-2251;

Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or

Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions:

All submissions must include the agency name, docket name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2125-AF53). Note that all comments received will be posted without change to

http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document for Privacy Act information related to any submitted comments or materials.

Docket:

For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov

at any time or to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FHWA has other rulemaking efforts underway to establish the measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c). The first performance measure NPRM covered the proposed performance management measures to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and to assess serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile traveled (VMT), and the number of serious injuries and fatalities. That NPRM was published on March 11, 2014 (79 FR 13846). The third performance measure NPRM will focus on measures for the performance of the NHS, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, and freight movement on the Interstate System. This last NPRM will also include a discussion that summarizes all three of the proposed rules to establish the measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).

This current NPRM also proposes: The additional definitions that would be applicable to the proposed regulations; the process State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) would use to establish performance targets that reflect the measures proposed in this rulemaking; and the methodology State DOTs would use to assess compliance with the target achievement provision specified in MAP-21. The NPRM also proposes the process State DOTs would follow to report on progress toward the achievement of pavement and bridge condition-related performance targets. Finally, this NPRM proposes minimum levels for pavement and conditions on the Interstate System.

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary

II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations

III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

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

B. Broader Public Consultation

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received

IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background

V. Performance Management Measure Analysis

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

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

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

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

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

program by establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program and provides for a framework to support improved investment decision making through a focus on performance outcomes for key national transportation goals. As part of performance management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds would make transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make progress towards national goals. The national performance goal for bridge and pavement condition is to maintain the condition of highway infrastructure assets in a state of good repair. The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement these MAP-21 performance management requirements.

Prior to MAP-21, there were no explicit requirements for State DOTs to demonstrate that their transportation program supported national performance outcomes. State DOTs were not required to measure condition, to establish targets, to assess progress towards targets, or to report on pavement and bridge condition in a nationally consistent manner that FHWA could use to assess the condition of the entire system. It was also difficult for FHWA to look at the effectiveness of the Federal-aid highway program as a means to address surface transportation performance at a national level.

This proposed rule is one of several rulemakings that DOT is or will be conducting to implement MAP-21's new performance management framework. The collective rulemakings would establish the regulations needed to more effectively evaluate and report on surface transportation performance across the country. This rulemaking proposes regulations that would: provide for greater consistency in the reporting of pavement and bridge conditions; require the establishment of targets that can be aggregated at the national level; require reporting in a consistent manner on progress achievement; and lastly require State DOTs to make significant progress. It would also require State DOTs to maintain their bridges and pavements at or above a minimum condition level. State DOTs would be expected to use the information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to better inform their transportation planning and programming decisionmaking. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid program that would result from this rulemaking would provide FHWA the ability to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably assess the impacts of Federal funding investments.

The FHWA is required to establish measures through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas generalized as follows: (1) Serious injuries per VMT; (2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the Interstate System; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS;

(7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) traffic congestion; (9) on-road mobile source emissions; (10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) performance of the Interstate System; and (12) performance of the non-Interstate NHS.

This rulemaking is the second of three NPRMs that together propose the establishment of performance measures for States DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess performance in each of these 12 areas. This rulemaking seeks to establish national measures for areas 5, 6, and 7, in the above list. Other rulemakings would establish national measures for the remaining areas in the above list. This NPRM proposes to establish performance measures to assess pavement and bridge conditions on the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP. The four proposed measures to assess pavement condition are: (1) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition; (2) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition; (3) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Good condition; and (4) a Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Poor condition. The two proposed performance measures for assessing bridge condition are: (1) Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Good Condition; and (2) Percentage of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor Condition.

“Non-Interstate NHS” and “NHS (excluding the Interstate)” are used interchangeably throughout this NPRM and have the same meaning.

These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance or condition.

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

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

The FHWA proposes the establishment of: Performance measures to be used by State DOTs to assess the condition of pavements and bridges and to carry out the NHPP; the process for State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for each of the measures; the methodology to determine whether State DOTs have achieved their targets; the process for State DOTs to use to report on progress for targets; and the minimum levels for pavement conditions on the Interstate System for purposes of carrying out 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1). The FHWA also proposes to incorporate the minimum level for condition of bridges on the NHS as required by 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(2).

This NPRM proposes to add to subpart A general information applicable to Part 490, to include requirements for target establishment, reporting on progress, and how determinations would be made on whether State DOTs have made significant progress toward NHPP targets. Subpart A also would include definitions and clarify terminology associated with target establishment, reporting, and making significant progress. Subparts C and D propose performance measures to assess pavement and bridge conditions. Section 490.105 proposes the process to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for each of the four pavement and two bridge measures. The State DOTs would establish 2- and 4-year targets for a 4-year performance period for the condition of infrastructure assets. State DOTs would establish their first statewide targets 1 year after the effective date of this rule. The MPOs would establish targets by either supporting the State DOT's statewide target, or defining a target unique to the metropolitan area each time the State DOT establishes a target. The MPOs would be provided a 180-day period following the date at which the State DOT establishes a target to establish their pavement and bridge targets.

Section 490.107 proposes performance reporting for State DOTs and MPOs. The State DOT would submit their established targets in a baseline report at the beginning of the performance period and report progress at the midpoint and end of the performance period. State DOTs would be allowed to adjust their 4-year target at the midpoint of the performance period. The MPOs would not be required to provide separate reporting to FHWA; however, State DOTs and MPOs

would need to agree to a target establishment reporting process in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in accordance with 23 CFR part 450.

Section 490.109 proposes the method FHWA would use to determine if State DOTs have achieved or have made significant progress toward the achievement of their NHPP targets. Significant progress would be determined from an analysis of estimated performance/condition and measured performance/condition of each of the NHPP targets. If applicable, State DOTs would have the opportunity to discuss why targets were not achieved or significant progress was not made. If a State DOT fails to achieve significant progress for two consecutive biennial performance reporting periods (total of 4 years), then the State DOT is required to document in their next biennial performance report and encouraged to document sooner, the actions they will undertake to achieve their targets.

In subparts C and D, §§ 490.305 and 490.405 propose the pavement and bridge performance measures and program-specific definitions to ensure that the proposed performance measures are clear and consistent.

Sections 490.307 and 490.407 propose that State DOTs and MPOs use a total of six measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges on the NHS. The proposed pavement measures would be applicable to both Interstate and non-Interstate NHS mainline roads and the proposed bridge measures would be applicable for all NHS bridges, including bridges on ramps that connect to NHS. Both the pavement and bridge measures would reflect the percentage of the system in good and poorp condition. The measure calculations would utilize data documented in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI).

Section 490.315 proposes the minimum level for condition of pavements on the Interstate System as required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).

Section 490.411 proposes to incorporate the minimum level for condition of bridges as required by 23 U.S.C 119(f)(2).

C. Costs and Benefits

The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new requirements proposed in this regulatory action that represent a change to current practices for State DOTs and MPOs.

The FHWA derived the costs of components by assessing the expected increase in level of effort from labor and additional capital needed to standardize and update State DOT data collection and reporting systems as well as the increase in level of effort from labor to establish and report targets. The FHWA sought opinions from pavement and bridge Subject Matter Experts (SME) to estimate impacts of the proposed rule. Cost estimates were developed based on assumptions informed by information received from SMEs.

See Table 7 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed in labor hours, with a corresponding loaded wage rate that varied by the type of laborer needed to perform the activity.

Where necessary, capital costs were included as well. Following this approach, the 10-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $196.4 million.

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

The FHWA expects that, upon implementation, the proposed rule would result in some significant benefits, although they are not easily quantifiable. Specifically, FHWA expects this proposed rule to result in improved pavement and bridge condition-related project, program, and policy choices. The proposed rule also would yield greater accountability for recipients of Federal funding because MAP-21-mandated reporting would increase visibility and transparency. In addition, the proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway program on achieving balanced performance outcomes.

The FHWA could not directly quantify the expected benefits discussed above due to data limitations and the amorphous nature of the benefits from the proposed rule. Therefore, in order to evaluate the benefits, FHWA used a break-even analysis as the primary approach to quantify benefits. For both pavements and bridges, FHWA focused its break-even analysis on Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) savings. The FHWA estimated the number of road miles of deficient pavement that would have to be improved (Table 8 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices) and the number of posted bridges that would have to be avoided (Table 9 in Section VI, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices) in order for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs. The results of the break-even analysis quantified the dollar value of the benefits that the proposed rule must generate to outweigh the threshold value, the estimated cost of the proposed rule, which is $196.4 million in undiscounted dollars. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule would surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would outweigh the costs. The below table displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost and benefits calculated for this rule.

OMB A-4—Accounting Statement

Category

Estimates

Primary

Low

High

Units

Year dollar

Discount rate

(percent)

Period

covered

Source/citation

Benefits:

Annualized Monetized ($ millions/year)

None

Not Quantified.

Annualized Quantified

None

Not Quantified.

Qualitative

With regard to the pavement condition measures, the rule is cost-beneficial if it results in the net improvement of approximately 435 miles of pavement (i.e., from Poor condition to Good) per year, or 4,350 miles over ten years, from its current base case projection. With regard to the bridge condition measures, 0.2 year-long bridge postings would need to be avoided per year, or 2 year-long bridge postings over ten years, in order for benefits to justify costs. Because of these low thresholds, FHWA determines that the proposed rule benefits outweigh the costs

Proposed Rule RIA.

Costs:

Annualized Monetized ($/year)

$21,233,675

2012

10 Years

Proposed Rule RIA.

$20,308,760

2012

10 Years

Annualized Quantified

None

2012

10 Years

Proposed Rule RIA.

Qualitative

Transfers

None

From/To

From:

To:

Effects:

State, Local, and/or Tribal Government

$21,162,705

2012

10 Years

Proposed Rule RIA.

$20,241,409

2012

10 Years

Small Business

Not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Proposed Rule RIA.

II. Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym or abbreviation

Term

AASHTO

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations.

CMAQ

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.

CRCP

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.

DOT

U.S. Department of Transportation.

State DOT

State department of transportation.

E.O.

Executive Order.

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration.

FTA

Federal Transit Administration.

HPMS

Highway Performance Monitoring System.

HSIP

Highway Safety Improvement Program.

HSP

Highway Safety Plan.

IRI

International Roughness Index.

MAP-21

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.

MPO

Metropolitan Planning Organization.

NARA

National Archives and Records Administration.

NBI

National Bridge Inventory.

NBIS

National Bridge Inspection Standards.

NHPP

National Highway Performance Program.

NCHRP

National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

NHS

National Highway System.

NPRM

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

OMB.

Office of Management and Budget.

PCCP or Jointed PCCP

Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.

PCI

Pavement Condition Index.

PRA

Paperwork Reduction Act.

PSR

Pavement Surface Rating.

RIA

Regulatory Impact Analysis.

RIN

Regulatory Identification Number.

RSL

Remaining Service Life.

Secretary

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

SHSP

Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

TMA

Transportation Management Area.

U.S.C

United States Code.

VMT

Vehicle miles traveled.

VOCs

Vehicle Operating Costs.

III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

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

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

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1), DOT consulted regularly with affected stakeholders (State DOTs, MPOs, industry, advocacy organizations, etc.) to better understand the operational and economic impact of this proposed rule. In general, these consultations included:

• Conducting listening sessions and workshops to clarify stakeholder sentiment and capture diverse opinions on the interpretation of technical information of the potential economic and operational impacts of implementing 23 U.S.C. 150;

• Conducting listening sessions and workshops to better understand the state-of-the-practice on the economic and operational impacts of implementing various noteworthy practices, emerging technologies, and data reporting, collection, and analysis frameworks;

• Hosting webinars with targeted stakeholder audiences to ask for their viewpoints through a chat pod or conference call; and

• Attending meetings with non-DOT SMEs, including task forces, advocacy groups, private industry, non-DOT Federal employees, academia, etc., to discuss timelines, priorities, and the most effective methods for implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; and to discuss and collect information on the issues that need to be addressed or the questions that need to be answered in the NPRMs to facilitate efficient implementation.

B. Broader Public Consultation

It is DOT's policy to provide for and encourage public participation in the rulemaking process. In addition to the public participation that was coordinated in conjunction with the stakeholder consultation discussed above, DOT provided opportunities for broader public participation. The DOT invited the public to provide technical and economic information to improve the agency's understanding of a subject and the potential impacts of rulemaking. This was done by providing an email address (

performancemeasuresrulemaking@dot.gov

) feature on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site to allow the public to provide their comments and suggestions about the development of the performance measures and holding national online dialogues and listening sessions to ask the public to post their ideas on national performance measures, standards, and policies. The DOT also conducted educational outreach to inform the public about transportation-related performance measures and standards, and solicited comments on them.

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(2)(A), FHWA will “provide States, metropolitan planning organizations, and other stakeholders not less than 90 days to comment on any regulation proposed by the Secretary . . .” During the notice and comment period, FHWA will hold public meetings to explain the provisions contained in these NPRMs, including this NPRM. All such meetings will be open to the public. However, all comments regarding the NPRMs must be submitted in writing to the rulemaking docket.

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received

This section summarizes some of the common themes identified during the stakeholder outreach. These themes are organized by general concerns, pavement condition measure concerns, and bridge condition measure concerns. It is important to note that some of the stakeholder comments related to more than one topic. In that case, the comments were placed under whichever theme was most directly affected.

General concerns:

• Stakeholders questioned how FHWA would establish a methodology for determining significant progress toward achieving performance targets, and commented on the administrative burden on State DOTs and MPOs associated with target establishment and reporting.

• Stakeholders asked DOT to avoid creating a “worst first” approach to selecting priorities and requested that FHWA consider using Asset Management principles to consider financial imbalances including the concept that performance measures should not drive the selection of projects. Stakeholders would like performance management to drive a system-wide, risk-based project selection approach that looks at long-term outcomes.

• The stakeholders' key messages were simplicity, consistency, and flexibility.

Pavement Condition Measures

Stakeholders suggested various analytic and empirical methods for performance measurement. One of the suggestions was to consider the use of Remaining Service Life (RSL) as a pavement performance measure. Stakeholders expressed that an RSL based approach to performance management would help agencies determine the timing and level of rehabilitation activities. Currently, some States DOTs have pavement and bridge measures that relate to RSL. Other suggested approaches for pavement performance measures included the Roadway Pavement Health Index

and the Decay Ratio.

This propriety approach is intended to provide State DOTs the ability to relate tradeoffs between RSL, pavement management system data and life cycle costs in years and dollar metrics. This approach may not require changes to data collection or classification but would cost time and money to develop.

The Decay Ratio is the ratio of deck area of bridges which have become newly deficient in the past year to the deck area of bridges which have been repaired/rehabilitated/replaced in the past year. More simply, Decay Ratio = (Deck Area Worse)/(Deck Area Improved).

Most stakeholders supported the use of International Roughness Index (IRI) as a pavement performance measure. Some added that it should not be the sole pavement performance measure and that there are some limitations to its ability to provide agencies sufficient information for making investment decisions. Those stakeholders that support its use pointed to the long history of IRI and its use in HPMS protocols.

Bridge Condition Measures

Stakeholders supported establishing bridge condition performance measures using the existing NBI data. However, stakeholders' opinions differed on the type of data to be used from the NBI and the processing of that data. For example, stakeholders were divided over the use of the “Structurally Deficient” classification. Some stakeholders also provided proprietary research information on advanced bridge condition assessment technologies and how these technologies may be used to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges used today as a standard practice.

Some stakeholders commented that simply measuring the physical

condition of a bridge does not provide a complete picture of the infrastructure problems. In addition to the physical condition, stakeholders suggested that FHWA consider the cost of repair or replacement and the importance of the facility based upon how many vehicles it served. However, others felt that element-level bridge condition data, which provides granularity, is necessary to develop performance metrics that can help States make better informed decisions concerning their bridge preservation needs.

In addition, stakeholders conveyed other concerns regarding a proposed bridge condition measure. They believed FHWA should provide State DOTs and MPOs flexibility to move toward a national bridge performance measure based on element-level data in the near future and take into account other factors such as population changes. Stakeholders were also concerned that expansion of the NHS to include all principal arterial routes in a State may impact a State DOT's ability to meet the minimum level for condition of bridges. Some stakeholders suggested that the measure established for minimum standard of bridge condition be consistent with definition of “state of good repair” in the “Bridge Preservation Guidance.”

Bridge Preservation Guidance (FHWA 2011)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/preservation/guide/guide.pdf

IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background

The cornerstone of MAP-21's Federal-aid highway program transformation is the transition to a performance and outcome-based program. As part of this program, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds would invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets that collectively would make progress toward national goals.

The MAP-21 provisions that focus on the achievement of performance outcomes are contained in a number of sections of the law that are administered by different DOT agencies. Consequently, these provisions may require an implementation approach that includes a number of separate but related rulemakings, some from other modes within the DOT. This NPRM is focused on the implementation of some performance provisions related to the NHPP. The FHWA is also undertaking a rulemaking to implement new asset management requirements (RIN 2125-AF57) under the NHPP (23 U.S.C.119). Interested persons should refer to both rulemakings. Additional rulemakings are underway to implement other MAP-21 performance requirements. A summary of these rulemakings, as they relate to this proposed rule, is provided in this section, and additional information regarding related implementation actions is available on the FHWA Web site.

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

Summary of Related Rulemakings

The DOT's proposal regarding MAP-21's performance requirements would be presented through several rulemakings, some of which were referenced in the above discussions. As a summary, these rulemaking actions are listed below and should be referenced for a complete picture of performance management implementation. The summary below describes the main provisions that DOT plans to propose for each rulemaking. The DOT will seek comment on each of these rulemakings.

1. First Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN: 2125-AF49)

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

a. Propose and define national measures for the HSIP

b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for Federal-aid highway program

c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of targets

d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing

e. Discuss how FHWA intends to implement MAP-21 performance related provisions.

2. Second Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (This NPRM)

a. Propose and define national measures for the condition of NHS pavements and bridges

b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid highway program

c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of targets for NHPP

d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing

e. Minimum levels for the condition of pavement on the Interstate System

3. Third Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN: 2125-AF54)

a. Propose and define national measures for the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require measures and are not discussed under the first and second measure rules, which includes the following: National Performance Measures for Performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate National Highway System; CMAQ—Traffic Congestion; CMAQ—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions; and Freight Movement on the Interstate System

b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid highway program

c. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing

d. Provide a summary of all three performance measure proposed rules

4. Update to the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RINs: 2125-AF52, 2132-AB10)

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

a. Supporting national goals in the scope of the planning process

b. Coordination between States, MPOs, and public transportation providers in selecting FHWA and public transportation performance targets

c. Integration of elements in other performance-based plans into the metropolitan and statewide planning process

d. Discussion in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs documenting how the programs are designed to achieve targets

e. New performance reporting requirements in the Metropolitan transportation plan

5. Updates to the Highway Safety Improvement Program Regulations (2125-AF56)

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

a. Integration of performance measures and targets into the HSIP

b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) updates

c. Establishment of Model Inventory of Roadway Element—Fundamental Data Elements

d. HSIP reporting requirements

6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset Management Plan Rule (2125-AF57)

a. Contents of asset management plan

b. Certification of process to develop plan

c. Transition period to develop plan

d. Minimum standards for pavement and bridge management systems

7. Transit State of Good Repair Rule (RIN: 2132-AB07)

The FTA published their Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that incorporated

items 7 and 8, on October 3, 2013. This ANPRM may be found at:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf.

a. Define state of good repair and establish measures

b. Transit asset management plan content and reporting requirements

c. Target establishment requirements for public transportation agencies and MPOs

8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132-AB20)

Ibid.

a. Define transit safety standards

b. Transit safety plan content and reporting requirements

9. Highway Safety Program Grants Rule (RIN: 2127-AL30, 2127-AL29)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published their Interim Final Rule (IFR) on January 23, 2013. This IFR may be found at:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-23/pdf/2013-00682.pdf.

a. Highway safety plan contents, including establishment of performance measures, targets, and reporting requirements

b. Review and approval of highway safety plans

Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions

The FHWA organized the many performance-related provisions within MAP-21 into six elements as defined below:

• National Goals—Goals or program purpose established in MAP-21 to focus the Federal-aid highway program on specific areas of performance.

• Measures—Establishment of measures by FHWA to assess performance and condition in order to carry out performance-based Federal-aid highway programs.

• Targets—Establishment of targets by recipients of Federal-aid highway funding for each of the measures to document expectations of future performance.

• Plans—Development of strategic and/or tactical plans by recipients of Federal funding to identify strategies and investments that will address performance needs.

• Reports—Development of reports by recipients of Federal funding that would document progress toward the achievement of targets, including the effectiveness of Federal-aid highway investments.

• Accountability—Requirements developed by FHWA for recipients of Federal funding to use to achieve or make significant progress toward achieving targets established for performance.

The following provides a summary of MAP-21 provisions, as they relate to the six elements listed above, including a reference to other related rulemakings that should be considered for a more comprehensive view of MAP-21 performance management implementation.

A. National Goals

The MAP-21 section 1203 establishes national goals to focus the Federal-aid highway program. The following national goals are codified at 23 U.S.C. 150(b):

• Safety—To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.

• Infrastructure condition—To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.

• Congestion reduction—To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS.

• System reliability—To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.

• Freight movement and economic vitality—To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.

• Environmental sustainability—To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

• Reduced project delivery delays—To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.

These national goals would be largely supported through the Metropolitan and Statewide planning process, which is discussed under a separate rulemaking (2125-AF52) to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations at 23 CFR part 450.

B. Measures

The MAP-21 requires the establishment of performance measures, in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders, that would do the following:

• Carry out the NHPP and assess the condition of pavements on the Interstate System and the NHS (excluding the Interstate System), the condition of bridges on the NHS, and performance of the Interstate System and NHS (excluding the Interstate System);

• carry out the HSIP and assess serious injuries and fatalities per VMT and the number of serious injuries and fatalities;

• carry out the CMAQ Program and assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions; and

• assess freight movement on the Interstate System.

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

23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1).

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

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

The MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum levels for the condition of pavements for the Interstate System necessary to carry out the NHPP, which is proposed in this rulemaking.

In addition, MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum standards for State DOTs to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems, which FHWA would propose in a separate rulemaking to establish an Asset Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57) for the NHS.

23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).

23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).

Separate sections of MAP-21 require the establishment of additional measures to assess public transportation performance.

These measures, which would be used to monitor the state of good repair of transit facilities and to establish transit safety criteria, would be addressed in two separate rulemakings, led by FTA.

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

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

C. Targets

The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program

and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these measures where applicable.

The first NPRM proposed the process for State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety performance targets. This NPRM and the third Federal-aid highway measure NPRM discuss similar target establishment requirements for State DOTs and MPOs as they relate to the measures discussed in the respective proposed rules. Additionally, State DOTs and MPOs are required to coordinate when selecting targets for the areas specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) in order to ensure consistency in the establishment of targets, to the maximum extent practical.

A separate rulemaking to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN 2125-AF52) at 23 CFR part 450 discusses this coordination requirement.

23 U.S.C. 150(d).

23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).

23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2), 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2).

Further, MAP-21 requires State Highway Safety Offices to establish targets for 10 core highway safety program measures in the HSP, which NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final Rule,

and for recipients of public transportation Federal funding and MPOs to establish state of good repair and safety targets.

Discussions on these target establishment requirements are not included in this NPRM. Rather, DOT will discuss those target establishment requirements in the subsequent rulemakings to implement these respective provisions.

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

49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.

D. Plans

A number of provisions within MAP-21 require State DOTs and MPOs to develop plans that provide strategic direction for addressing performance needs. For the Federal-aid highway program these provisions require: State DOTs to develop a NHS Asset Management Plan;

State DOTs to update their SHSP;

MPOs serving a large TMA in areas of non-attainment or maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan;

MPOs to include a System Performance Report in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan;

and State DOTs and MPOs to include a discussion, to the maximum extent practical, in their Transportation Improvement Program as to how the program would achieve the performance targets they have established for the area.

In addition, State DOTs are encouraged to develop a State Freight Plan to document planned activities and investments with respect to freight.

This rulemaking does not discuss any requirements to develop or use plans. Rather, a discussion on the development and use of these plans would be included in the respective rulemakings to implement these provisions. More information on the required plans and the actions to implement the statutory provisions related to plans can be found on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site.

23 U.S.C. 119(e).

23 U.S.C. 148(d).

23 U.S.C. 149(l).

23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).

23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).

MAP-21 Section 1118.

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

E. Reports

The MAP-21 section 1203 requires State DOTs to submit biennial reports to FHWA on the condition and performance of the NHS, the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State DOT's asset management plan for the NHS, progress in achieving targets, and ways in which the State DOT is addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks.

The FHWA proposed in the first NPRM that safety progress be reported by State DOTs through the HSIP annual report and not in the biennial report required under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). This NPRM, under subpart A, discusses the 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting requirement. The 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting requirement would apply to all of the non-safety measures for the Federal-aid highway program (

i.e.,

the measures proposed in this NPRM and in the third Performance Measures NPRM).

23 U.S.C. 150(e).

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

F. Accountability

Two provisions within MAP-21, specifically 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) under the NHPP and 23 U.S.C. 148(i) under the HSIP, require the State DOT to undertake actions if significant progress is not made toward the achievement of State DOT targets established for these respective programs. For the NHPP, if a State DOT does not achieve or make significant progress toward the achievement of its NHS performance targets for two consecutive biennial reports, then the State DOT must document in its next report the actions it would take to achieve the targets.

The proposed implementation of this provision is covered in subpart A of this NPRM. For the HSIP, if a State DOT does not achieve or make significant progress toward the achievement of its HSIP safety targets, then the State DOT must dedicate a specified amount of obligation limitation to safety projects and prepare an annual implementation plan.

The first performance measures NPRM discussed this provision.

23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).

23 U.S.C. 148(i).

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

This NPRM discusses this provision.

23 U.S.C. 119(f).

The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact that State DOTs can have on performance outcomes within the State and that State DOTs need to consider this uncertainty in their establishment of targets. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to consult with relevant entities (

e.g.,

MPOs, local transportation agencies, Federal Land Management Agencies, tribal governments) as State DOTs establish targets, so they can better identify and consider factors outside of their direct control that could impact future condition/performance.

Further, MAP-21 includes special safety rules to require each State DOT to maintain or improve safety performance on high risk rural roads and for older drivers and pedestrians.

If the State

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

23 U.S.C. 148(g).

Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements

The FHWA will implement the performance requirements within section 1203 of MAP-21 in a manner that results in a transformation of the Federal-aid highway program so that the program focuses on national goals, provides for a greater level of accountability and transparency, and provides a means for the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. The FHWA plans to implement these new requirements in a manner that will provide Federal-aid highway fund recipients the greatest opportunity to fully embrace a performance-based approach to transportation investment decisionmaking that does not hinder performance improvement. In this regard, FHWA carefully considered the following principles in the development of proposed regulations for national performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c):

• Provide for a National Focus—focus the performance requirements on outcomes that can be reported at a national level.

• Minimize the Number of Measures—identify only the most necessary measures that would be required for target establishment and progress reporting. Limit the number of measures to one or no more than two per area specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).

• Ensure for Consistency—provide a sufficient level of consistency, nationally, in the establishment of measures, the process to establish targets and report expectations, and the approach to assess progress so that transportation performance can be presented in a credible manner at a national level.

• Phase in Requirements—allow for sufficient time to comply with new requirements and consider approaches to phase in new approaches to measuring, target establishment, and reporting performance.

• Increase Accountability and Transparency—consider an approach that would provide the public and decision makers a better understanding of Federal transportation investment returns and needs.

• Consider Risk—recognize that risks in the target establishment process are inherent and that many factors, outside the control of those that would be required to establish targets, can impact performance.

• Understand that Priorities Differ—recognize that targets need to be established across a wide range of performance areas and that performance trade-offs would need to be made to establish priorities, which would be influenced by local and regional needs.

• Recognize Fiscal Constraints—provide for an approach that encourages the optimal investment of Federal funds to maximize performance but recognize that, when operating with scarce resources, performance cannot always be improved.

• Provide for Flexibility—recognize that the MAP-21 requirements are the first steps that will transform the Federal-aid highway program to a performance-based program and that State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders would be learning a great deal as implementation occurs.

The FHWA considered these principles in this NPRM and encourages comments on the extent to which this approach to performance measures, set forth in this NPRM, supports the principles discussed above.

Federal Technical Assistance

The FHWA is committed to providing stewardship to State DOTs and MPOs assisting them as they take steps to manage and improve the performance of the highway system. As a Federal agency, FHWA is in a unique position to utilize resources at a national level to capture and share strategies that can improve performance. The FHWA is prepared to dedicate resources at the national level to provide on-site assistance, technical tools and guidance to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them in making more effective investment decisions. It is FHWA's intent to be engaged at a local and national level to provide resources and assistance from the onset to identify opportunities to improve performance and to increase the chances for full State DOT and MPO compliance of new performance related regulations. The FHWA technical assistance will include activities such as conducting national research studies, developing analytical modeling tools, identifying and promoting best practices, preparing guidance materials, and developing data quality assurance tools. The FHWA encourages comments on how it can help maximize opportunities for successful implementation.

V. Performance Management Measure Analysis

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

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

The FHWA considered views from the following sources when developing pavement and bridge measures to carry out the NHPP:

• Knowledge of technical experts within DOT on the current state of practice to monitor highway pavement and bridge condition;

• Information provided by external stakeholders received directly or captured as part of organized stakeholder listening sessions;

• Information provided by external stakeholders received indirectly through informal contact such as telephone calls, email or letters; and

• Measures that have been recommended and documented in nationally recognized reports such as the assessment of measurement readiness documented in the final report for NCHRP 20-24(37)G, “Technical Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance Measurements.”

Pavement Condition Measure

Since 2010, through HPMS, State DOTs have submitted rutting, Cracking_Percent, International Roughness Index (IRI), and faulting data metrics.

The FHWA's “Conditions and Performance Report” and “Highway Statistics Series” have used pavement roughness, with the IRI as a metric, as the basis for its pavement conditions.

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

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

e.g.,

pavement

roughness, percentage of pavement that is rutted, percentage of pavement that is cracked, and the amount of misalignment between concrete pavement slabs), to report on and manage the condition of pavements in their State. There is not currently a nationally accepted method for assessing pavement condition using multiple pavement condition metrics (

e.g.,

IRI, rutting, Cracking_Percent, faulting) that most State DOTs use. A survey conducted as part of the 2009 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401 study

revealed that 98 percent of State DOTs collect distress data (

e.g.,

faulting, cracking) and 95 percent collect roughness data to monitor network level pavement conditions. Similarly, an assessment of pavement management practices conducted by FHWA indicated that, for the NHS, all State DOTs monitor roughness and rutting, 94 percent monitor Cracking_Percent, 95 percent monitor faulting (with concrete surfaced pavements), and 31 percent monitor structural capacity.

Flintsch G., McGhee K., NCHRP Synthesis 401, “Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection”, 2009.

The FHWA selected these metrics for calculation of the performance measures to assess pavement conditions in this rulemaking. In support of the selection of these metrics, FHWA evaluated their use in highway pavement investment decisions by State DOTs. The Texas Transportation Institute conducted a study, called the “Pavement Score Synthesis.” The synthesis study indicated that nearly all State DOTs use a combination of pavement condition attributes and a variety of methods and procedures to rate the condition of pavements. Most of these methods and procedures included some aspect of pavement roughness and at least one other pavement condition metric. A recently completed NCHRP project

included a detailed review of data collected and reported by State DOTs on pavement condition in their State pavement management system as compared to the data they report in the HPMS. This project included a national survey that was provided to all State DOTs and a detailed assessment using data collected and reported from eight State DOTs. The project's report indicated that assessments of pavement condition using State DOT methods of qualifying good, fair, and poor conditions were noticeably different from an approach based solely on IRI conditions as reported in the HPMS.

Zimmerman, K., Smadi, O. NCHRP 20-24(82), “Increasing Consistency in HPMS Pavement Data,” 2013.

In developing its proposed measure, FHWA considered the use of existing methods such as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) developed by the Army Corps of Engineers, the RSL concept using prediction models developed for the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, under NCHRP 1-37A

, and State DOT-developed methods to calculate a pavement condition rating. The FHWA found that no single existing method was used predominantly enough to be considered as a national standard. In addition, existing methods, such as the PCI, were too challenging to implement nationally due to the burden and time associated with introducing pavement condition metrics that are not currently reported at a national level through a system like HPMS.

“The Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,

”

NCHRP 1-37A, 2004,

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/part_12_cover_ack_toc.pdf.

The FHWA has been working for the past several years in consultation with State DOTs to evaluate approaches that could more completely assess pavement condition at a national level. Based on these efforts, FHWA proposes to establish measures to assess pavement condition that meet the following criteria:

• Consider more than roughness.

• Utilize pavement condition attributes currently reported at a national level.

• Utilize pavement condition attributes where data collection and reporting standards exist today.

• Result in an assessment approach that is consistent with typical conceptual approaches used today by State DOTs to assess condition.

• Consider an approach that can be implemented so that State DOTs can establish targets within a 12-month time period after FHWA establishes the performance measures without introducing a considerable burden on State DOTs.

The FHWA proposes in this NPRM a measure for State DOTs to use to assess pavement condition that satisfies the criteria above and is based on data within the HPMS, including: IRI, rutting for asphalt surfaced pavements, faulting for jointed concrete surfaced pavements, and Cracking_Percent. The FHWA proposes pavement condition measures that would reflect the predominant condition represented by each of these HPMS data elements.

The four proposed measures to assess pavement condition are: (1) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition; (2) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition; (3) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Good condition; and (4) a Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Poor condition.

The FHWA is proposing measures to represent both the percentage of Good pavements and the percentage of Poor pavements that would support sound asset management practices. The FHWA intends to implement a condition measurement approach that will recognize the need to both preserve Good and Fair conditions and improve Poor conditions. The FHWA believes that a measurement approach that focused only on increasing Good conditions or only on reducing Poor conditions may result in practices that would not optimize the benefits of infrastructure investments. This same approach is proposed for the bridge condition measures as discussed in the next section.

Bridge Condition Measure

The FHWA, using data from the NBI, monitors bridge conditions in the United States. This database was established in 1972 and State DOTs have been required to submit annual reports to FHWA since 1978. The NBI is a highly consistent set of national data for evaluating the condition and performance of bridges. The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) in 23 CFR part 650 contribute to this consistency. The NBIS established the national standards for the proper and uniform inspection and evaluation of highway bridges. The NBIS include the specified methods by which inspections are to be carried out, qualifications for those charged with carrying out inspections, and certain bridge data that is to be collected and retained for collection by FHWA. For these reasons, FHWA considers the NBI and its data the definitive source for national bridge information and the most appropriate metric for bridge condition measures.

The “Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report”

evaluated different methods to assign bridge condition using NBI data as a metric for defining a Good, Fair, or Poor classification. For this study, the NBI

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

Guerre, et al., FHWA-HIF-12-049, “Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report,” 2012

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif12049/hif12049.pdf

Findings of the study concluded that for the Interstate System:

• Percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor were consistent for the four different weighted average methods and the minimum condition rating method with little variation;

• the minimum condition rating method resulted in the highest percentage of bridges in Poor condition;

• percentages of bridges classified as Good, Fair, or Poor based on the four weighted average methods were not sensitive to the weights; and

• bridge deck conditions alone are typically not the driving factor in the Good, Fair, or Poor classifications.

The FHWA conducted an additional assessment of the different methods and observed that the magnitude in differences between condition ratings for individual NBI items was somewhat nullified when a final average or weighted average method was employed. The “Improving FHWA's Ability to Assess Highway Infrastructure Health Pilot Study Report” made a similar observation. This masking or obscuring of possible poor bridge conditions is a major concern with these methods. Although these methods could be further refined to possibly resolve this problem, the development, subjectivity, and complexity of such methods makes them less desirable than the simple minimum condition rating method, particularly when analyses indicate that a refined weighted method would result in the same general classification as the minimum condition rating method.

The FHWA proposes to establish two bridge performance measures using a classification system of Good, Fair, and Poor. These are based on an assessment of bridge condition data from the NBI. The measures would reflect the lowest component condition rating for the bridge.

The FHWA further proposes to weight this classification by the respective deck area of the bridge and express condition totals as a percentage of the total bridge deck area in a State.

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

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

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

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

• Green—Criterion is fully met for the candidate measure

• Yellow—Criterion is partially met for the candidate measure and work is underway to fully meet the criterion

• Red—Criterion is not fully met or no work is underway or planned that would allow the criterion to be met

The FHWA used the results of this assessment to identify gaps that FHWA could address through this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness of the measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess pavement and bridge conditions. The rulemaking docket contains a description of the methodology used for this assessment.

Pavement Condition Performance Management Measures

The following four pavement performance measures for assessing condition proposed by FHWA are calculated from data from the HPMS: (1) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Good condition; (2) Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in Poor condition; (3) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Good condition; and (4) Percentage of pavements on the NHS (excluding the Interstate System) in Poor condition. The assessment process described earlier in this section evaluates these pavement performance measures for assessing conditions based on existing state-of-the-practice. Table 1 provides a summary of this assessment.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

EP05JA15.001

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

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

• Criterion A3—consider data standards that allow for new data

collection methods as technologies improve. Consider an approach that allows for pavement metrics to change in the future as data standards are updated and improved.

• Criterion A4—recognize that the individual pavement metrics are not typically used to drive decisionmaking. Consider how the four metrics can be used collectively to develop a pavement measure that is more closely tied to decisionmaking.

• Criterion A6—consider changes to the current requirements to collect, store, and report data to the HPMS to support the proposed pavement condition measure.

• Criterion B1—recognize the time lag of data available in national data sources versus the availability of data in State-maintained sources in requirements associated with proposed pavement measures, target establishment, and evaluation of progress.

• Criteria B2 and B4—consider an approach that utilizes data collection standards and data reporting requirements that would improve consistency and accuracy in application across the country and recognize that these improvements can take time to implement. Recognize that State DOTs have been collecting and reporting pavement condition metrics for many years and that the standards, frequency, and formats have changed during this time.

• Criterion B3—consider an approach that improves the completeness of data coverage in the HPMS and recognize that State data submissions often have not represented the full extent of the NHS.

• Criterion B6—recognize the essential need for a national data source for pavement condition and that implementing minor adjustments to existing State DOT methodologies would facilitate the creation of such a national data source at a relatively low cost. Furthermore, many States already have technology, such as Geographic information Systems or Enterprise Resource Systems that can integrate data from various sources to support decisionmaking on a larger scale to aid with asset management and performance reporting programs.

Bridge Condition Performance Management Measures

The FHWA proposes two performance measures for assessing bridge condition: (1) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS Bridges Classified as in Good condition; and (2) Percentage of Deck Area of NHS Bridges Classified as in Poor condition. This data includes the following NBI items: 58—Deck, 59—Superstructure, 60—Substructure, and 62—Culverts. These bridge performance measures for assessing condition attributes were evaluated using the, existing state-of-the-practice, assessment process described in Section A.

All of the criteria, when applied to the proposed bridge performance measures, can be fully met largely because FHWA and stakeholders recognize that the NBI is, and has been for decades, the most consistent and comprehensive set of national data for evaluating the condition of bridges. Because the NBIS contains a consistent set of required standards for State DOTs to use for the proper inspection and evaluation of bridges for safety and serviceability, its use results in consistent and accurate data that goes into the NBI. Nearly every State DOT uses the NBI in some form as the basis for their current bridge decisionmaking. The calculation of the performance measures for assessing bridge condition provides flexibility to accommodate future changes such as the use of element level bridge data. In addition, the proposed measures are consistent with the feedback that FHWA has received from stakeholders. Therefore, FHWA considers the proposed bridge performance measures ready for use.

In this NPRM, FHWA is proposing the establishment of measures to assess pavement and bridge conditions. These measures would be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets, develop plans, and report on progress. As discussed in the background of this proposal, FHWA is conducting a related rulemaking to establish requirements for the development of Asset Management Plans; this NPRM includes proposed minimum standards for State DOTs to use to develop and operate pavement and bridge management systems (RIN 2125-AF56). State DOTs use these systems to develop investment strategies for managing the conditions of their pavement and bridge networks. Further, FHWA has issued a proposed rule to update 23 CFR 450 to integrate performance in the scope of the metropolitan and statewide planning process (RIN 2125-AF52, 2132-AB10). Collectively, these three rulemakings discuss how the proposed measures would be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess and manage pavement and bridge conditions.

Transportation decision makers consider a range of factors that ultimately influence project level investments decisions and typically reflect the transportation priorities for a local area or region. For example, a State DOT may, as a priority, focus their decisionmaking on investments that first address the sections of highways with higher traffic volumes or fatalities. With the exception of the minimum condition requirements for Interstate pavements and NHS bridges, FHWA is not proposing an implementation approach in this NPRM that would suggest how a State DOT or MPO would prioritize investment decisions. State DOTs and MPOs consider their priorities through the planning process.

The requirement of reporting and assessing targets would not necessarily dictate how a State DOT or MPO should prioritize their decision-making in establishing the targets required by 23 U.S.C. 150(d). A State DOT or MPO may consider a number of factors, such as funding availability and local transportation priorities, that could impact the targets they ultimately establish for pavement and bridge system conditions. For this reason, as stated in the discussion sections for §§ 490.105 and 490.109, the State DOT or MPO may elect to establish targets that represent a decline in pavement or bridge system conditions. Once established, the State DOT and MPO would use their targets to program investments by selecting sections of highway that would be treated to preserve or improve condition. The proposed regulation allows a State DOT or MPO to make decisions on the location of project investments. The FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to select projects that will maximize the investment returns in improving system conditions.

The measures that are being proposed in this rulemaking are intended to summarize the condition based on the physical attributes of the pavement and bridge facility. Consequently, under this proposal a pavement or bridge would be rated in the same condition (Good, Fair, or Poor) regardless of the facility's location; functional class; level of use; environment; or impact the facility may have on other aspects of transportation performance, such as safety and traffic congestion. The FHWA is seeking comment from the public on whether the measures should reflect additional factors that could influence decision making, such as facility location, functional class, level of use, environment, or impact it may have on other aspects of transportation performance.

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

This Section-by-Section discusses how the proposed regulations address MAP-21's charge to establish national performance measures for State DOTs and MPOs to assess the condition of pavements and bridges to carry out the NHPP. The common aspects of the proposed rulemaking, related to reporting, significant progress determination, and target development, are discussed in subpart A: General Information. For the bridge and pavement performance measures, the proposed rule is separated by asset.

Subpart C addresses the Pavement performance measures and subpart D addresses the Bridge performance measures. Subparts C and D provide the requirements for the Pavement and Bridge performance measures, including methodologies for data collection, data requirements, a calculation process for evaluating condition, establishment or identification of minimal level of condition, and penalties for not maintaining condition. The Section-by-Section discussion also addresses procedural discrepancies in current data collection and reporting and attempts to update them utilizing the latest research and state-of-the-practice experience to provide consistent national performance measures.

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

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

Discussion of § 490.101 General Definitions

The FHWA proposes a section of general definitions. The first NPRM regarding the establishment of measures for carrying out the HSIP included several definitions (HPMS, measure, metric, non-urbanized area and target) that are repeated in this NPRM to provide clarity in the implementation of the proposed performance measures.

The FHWA proposes to define “Full Extent” to delineate data collection methods that utilize a sampling approach versus those that use a continuous form of data collection.

The FHWA proposes to include a definition for “Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)” because it will be one of the data sources used in establishing a measure and establishing a target. The HPMS is an FHWA maintained, national level highway information system that includes State DOT-submitted data on the extent, condition, performance, use and operating characteristics of the Nation's highways. The HPMS database was jointly developed and implemented by FHWA and State DOTs beginning in 1974 and it is a continuous data collection system serving as the primary source of information for the Federal government about the Nation's highway system. Additionally, the data in the HPMS is used for the analysis of highway system condition, performance, and investment needs that make up the biennial Condition and Performance Reports to Congress. These Reports are used by the Congress in establishing both authorization and appropriation legislation, activities that ultimately determine the scope and size of the Federal-aid highway program, and determine the level of Federal highway taxation. Increasingly, State DOTs, as well as the MPOs, have utilized the HPMS as they have addressed a wide variety of concerns about their highway systems.

Numerous State DOTs and the MPOs use HPMS data and its analytical capabilities for supporting their condition/performance assessment, investment requirement analysis, strategic and state planning efforts, etc.

Highway Performance Monitoring System, FHWA Office of Policy Information.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/nahpms.cfm.

The FHWA proposes to define “mainline highway” to limit the extent of the highway system to be included in the scope of the proposed pavement performance measures. The proposed definition for mainline highway includes the primary traveled portion of the roadway and excludes ramps, climbing lanes, turn lanes, auxiliary lanes, shoulders, and non-normally traveled pavement surfaces.

The FHWA proposes to include a definition for “measure” because establishing measures is a critical element of an overall performance management approach and it is important to have a common definition that the FHWA can use throughout the Part. To have a consistent definition for “measure,” the FHWA proposes to make a distinction between “measure” and “metric.” Hence, the FHWA proposes to define “metric” as a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition and to define “measure” as an expression based on a metric that is used to establish targets and to assess progress toward achieving the established targets.

The FHWA proposes a definition for “National Bridge Inventory (NBI)” because it is the data system that would be used to establish the measure for assessing the condition of the bridges on the NHS and the targets for the measure, and the assessment of progress toward achieving the established targets. This definition is based on the description of an inventory as required by 23 U.S.C. 144(b)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 144(h)(2)(D).

The FHWA proposes to include a definition for “non-urbanized areas” to provide clarity in the implementation of the provision in 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that allows the State DOTs the option of selecting different targets for “urbanized and rural areas.” As written, the statute is silent regarding the small urban areas that fall between “rural” and “urbanized” areas. Instead of only giving the State DOTs the option of establishing targets for “rural” and “urbanized” areas, FHWA proposes to define “non-urbanized” areas to include both “rural” areas and the small urban areas that are larger than “rural” areas but do not meet the criteria of an “urbanized area.” This would then allow State DOTs to establish different targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. For target-establishment purposes, the FHWA believes that these small urban areas are best treated with the “rural” areas, as non-urbanized areas, because both of these areas do not have the same complexities that come with having the population and density of urbanized areas and are generally more rural in characteristic. In addition, neither of these areas are treated as MPOs in the transportation planning process or given the authority under MAP-21 to establish their own targets.

The FHWA proposes to include a definition for “Performance period” to establish a definitive period of time during which condition/performance would be measured, evaluated, and reported. The frequency of measurement and target establishment for the measures proposed to implement 23 U.S.C. 150 is not directly or indirectly defined in statute. The FHWA proposes a consistent time period of 4 calendar years that would be used to assess non-safety condition/performance. This time period aligns with the timing of the biennial performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) and is consistent with a typical planning cycle for most State DOTs and MPOs (

e.g.,

State and MPO transportation improvement programs are required to cover a 4-year period; metropolitan plans are also required to be updated every 4 or 5 years). The

proposed calendar year basis is consistent with data reporting requirements currently in place to report pavement and bridge conditions, which are also done on a calendar year basis.

The FHWA proposes a definition for “Performance period” that would cover a 4-year period beginning on January 1 of the calendar year in which targets are due to FHWA, as discussed in § 490.105. Within a performance period, condition/performance would be measured and evaluated to: (1) Assess condition/performance with respect to baseline condition/performance; and (2) track progress toward the achievement of the target that represents the intended condition/performance level at the midpoint and at the end of that time period. The term “Performance period” applies to all proposed measures in this Part, except the proposed measures for the HSIP provided for in § 490.209 where FHWA proposed a 1 calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target establishment and reporting.

The FHWA proposes to include a definition for “target” to indicate how measures will be used for target establishment by State DOTs and MPOs to assess performance or condition.

Discussion of § 490.103 Data Requirements

The FHWA is proposing in § 490.103 data requirements that apply to more than one subpart in part 490. Additional proposed data requirements that are unique to each subpart are included and discussed in their respective subpart.

In this section, FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would submit urbanized area boundaries in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual. The boundaries of urbanized areas would be as identified through the most recent U.S. Decennial Census unless FHWA approves adjustments to the urbanized area, as submitted by State DOTs and allowed for under 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34). These boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the year the Baseline Performance Report is due, and are applicable to the entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved adjustments to the urbanized area boundary during the performance period. The FHWA proposes that the State DOT submitted boundary information would be the authoritative data source for the target scope for the additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas (§ 490.105(e)(3)), progress reporting (§ 490.107(b)), and IRI rating (§ 490.313(b)(1)) for the measures identified in § 490.105(c)(1)-(3). As discussed in § 490.105(d)(3), any changes in urbanized area boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for until the following performance period. The FHWA-approved urbanized area data available in HPMS on June 15th (HPMS due date) prior to the due date of the Baseline Performance Report is to be used for this purpose. For example, State DOTs shall submit their first Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA by October 1, 2016. The FHWA approved urbanized area data available in HPMS on June 16, 2016 is to be used.

Section 490.103(c) is reserved.

In § 490.103(d), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would continue to submit NHS limit data in accordance with HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA proposed that the State DOT submitted NHS information would be the authoritative data source for determining measure applicability (§ 490.105(c)), target scope (§ 490.105(d)), progress reporting (§ 490.107(b)), and determining significant progress (§ 490.109(d)) for the measures identified in § 490.105(c)(1)-(3). As discussed in § 490.105(e)(3)(i), the NHS limits dataset referenced in the Baseline Performance Report are to be applied to the entire performance period, regardless of changes to the NHS approved and submitted to HPMS during the performance period.

Discussion of § 490.105 Establishment of Performance Targets

The declared policy under 23 U.S.C. 150(a) transforms the Federal-aid highway program and encourages the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation goals, increasing accountability and transparency in the Federal-aid highway program, and improving investment decisionmaking. To this end, FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets that would support the national transportation goals while improving investment decision-making processes.

A number of considerations were raised during the performance management stakeholder outreach sessions regarding target establishment, such as: Providing flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs, coordinating through the planning process, allowing for appropriate time for target achievement, and allowing State DOTs and MPOs to incorporate risks. Using these considerations, FHWA created a set of principles to develop an approach to implement the target establishment requirements in MAP-21. These principles aimed to develop an approach that:

• Provides for a new focus for the Federal-aid program on the MAP-21 national goals under 23 U.S.C. 150(b);

• improves investment decisionmaking;

• considers the need for local performance trade-off decisionmaking;

• provides for flexibility in the establishment of targets;

• allows for an aggregated view of anticipated condition/performance; and

• considers budget constraints.

In § 490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that would be followed by State DOTs and MPOs in the establishment of targets for all measures identified in § 490.105(c), which include the proposed measures in both this performance management NPRM and the third performance management NPRM. These requirements are being proposed to implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target establishment provisions in a manner that provides for the consistency necessary to evaluate and report progress at a State, MPO, and national level, while also providing a degree of flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(a) for State DOTs and MPOs to establish quantifiable targets for each performance measure identified in § 490.105(c). In § 490.105(b), the performance targets for carrying out the HSIP would be established in accordance with § 490.209 of the first performance management NPRM.

In § 490.105(d), FHWA proposes that State DOTs establish statewide targets that represent performance outcomes of the transportation network within the respective State boundary, and that MPOs establish targets that represent performance outcomes of the transportation network within their respective metropolitan planning area. State DOTs and, if applicable, MPOs are encouraged to coordinate their target-establishment with neighboring states and MPOs to the extent practicable. The FHWA further proposes in § 490.105(d) that State DOTs and MPOs establish targets that represent performance outcomes of the entire transportation network required for proposed measures regardless of ownership, including NHS bridges that cross a State border.

The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact the State DOT and the MPO can have on the performance outcomes within the State and the metropolitan planning area, respectively, and recognizes that the State DOT and the MPO need to consider this uncertainty when

establishing targets. For example, some Federal and tribal lands contain roads and bridges on the NHS that State DOTs would need to consider (as appropriate) when establishing targets. The FHWA anticipates that State DOTs and MPOs would need to consult with relevant entities (

e.g.,

relevant MPOs, State DOTs, local transportation agencies, Federal Land Management Agencies, tribal governments) as they establish targets to better identify and consider factors outside of their direct control that could impact future condition/performance.

The FHWA also recognizes that the limits of the NHS could change between the time of target establishment and the time of progress evaluation and reporting for the targets for measures specified in sections § 490.105(c)(1) through (3). State DOTs may request modifications to the NHS, which could result in additions, deletions or relocations. In one instance with MAP-21, segments were added to the NHS. Such changes may alter the measures reported, which could then impact how an established target relates to actual measured performance. For example, if NHS limits are changed after a State DOT establishes the target, actual measured performance of the transportation network within the changed NHS limits would represent a different set of highways as compared to what was originally used to establish the target. This difference could impact a State DOT's ability to make significant progress toward achieving targets. Thus, for establishing targets for NHS, FHWA believes that it will be important for the State DOT to ensure that the data used to establish the targets is accessible, and the information about the data is properly documented. Consequently, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would need to describe the extent of the NHS used for target establishment. The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs declare and describe their urbanized area boundaries. This information would be included, along with reporting targets, in the Baseline Performance Period Report described in § 490.107(b)(1). These NHS limits and urbanized area boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the year the Baseline Performance Report is due, and are applicable to the entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved adjustments to the NHS limits during the performance period. In § 490.105(d)(3), FHWA proposes that any changes in NHS limits or urbanized area boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for until the following performance period.

In § 490.105(e), FHWA proposes the State DOT requirements for the establishment of targets for all measures identified in paragraph 490.105(c), with applicable transportation network for those targets (target scope) defined in paragraph 490.105(d). Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 150(e), FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(1) that State DOTs would establish targets within 1 year of the effective date of this rule, and for each performance period thereafter the State DOTs would establish and report the targets to FHWA by the due date provided in § 490.107(b)(1). The FHWA anticipates the final rule for this proposal to be effective no later than October 1, 2015. This would allow for at least a 1-year period for States to establish targets so that they can be reported in the first biennial performance report which would be due to FHWA by October 1, 2016. The FHWA recognizes that if the final rule is effective after October 1, 2015, the due date to report State DOT targets for the first performance period may need to be adjusted. If it becomes clear that the final rule won't be effective until after October 1, 2015, FHWA will consider adjusting the due date in the final rule or will issue implementation guidance that would provide State DOTs a 1-year period to establish and report targets.

The proposed schedule would require the establishment and reporting of targets at the beginning of each performance period or every 4 years. With the exception of the allowance proposed in § 490.105(e)(6), FHWA recommends that State DOTs would not have the ability to change targets reported for a performance period. Considering this proposed limitation, State DOTs would need to provide for sufficient time to fully evaluate their targets before they are due to be reported to FHWA.

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in § 490.105 (e)(2) that State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs to establish consistent targets, to the maximum extent practicable. The coordination would be accomplished in accordance with 23 CFR 450. The FHWA recognizes the need for State DOTs and MPOs to have a shared vision on expectations for future condition/performance in order for there to be a jointly owned target establishment process.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to establish additional targets for any of the proposed measures in Subparts C and D, beyond the required statewide target. The State DOT could establish additional targets for any number and combination of urbanized areas and could establish a target for the non-urbanized area for any or all of the proposed measures. This is intended to give the State flexibility when setting targets, and to aid the State in accounting for differences in urbanized and the non-urbanized area. For instance, a State DOT could choose to establish additional targets for a single urbanized area, a number of the urbanized areas, or all of the urbanized areas separately or collectively. For States that want to establish a non-urbanized target, it would be a single target that applies to the non-urbanized area statewide. If the State DOT elects to establish any additional targets, they need to be declared and described in the State Biennial Performance Report just after the start date of a performance period (

i.e.,

Baseline Performance Period Report). The FHWA intends to issue guidance regarding the voluntary establishment of additional performance targets for urbanized areas and the non-urbanized area.

If a State DOT chooses to establish additional performance targets, it would increase the number of performance targets that it reports. For example, at a minimum, State DOTs would be required to establish four statewide targets for the pavement condition measures, as specified in § 490.307. If a State DOT chooses to establish additional targets for all 4 pavement condition measures for the single largest urbanized area in its state, the State DOT would increase the total number of pavement condition targets to eight (4 required targets + 4 additional urbanized area targets = 8).

For each additional target established, State DOTs would evaluate whether they have made progress towards achieving each target and report on that progress in their biennial performance report in accordance with § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(ii)(B).

Any additional targets the State DOT chooses to establish would not be subject to the significant progress assessment in § 490.109. Because these additional targets are optional and subcomponents of targets established under § 490.105(d), including them in the significant progress assessment proposed in § 490.109 could result in “double counting” during that assessment. The FHWA believes that excluding these additional targets from the significant progress assessment in § 490.109 provides an opportunity for some flexibility with respect to establishing the targets and may

encourage State DOTs to establish these additional targets.

Historically, the Census has defined urbanized areas every 10 years, and these boundaries can be adjusted (see 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34)). The FHWA recognizes that the urbanized area boundaries and resulting non-urbanized area boundary have the potential to change on varying schedules. Changing a boundary during a performance period may lead to changes in the measures reported for the area, and could impact how an established target relates to actual measured performance. Thus, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would need to describe the urbanized area boundaries and the non-urbanized area boundary in place at the start of a performance period in the Baseline Performance Period Report, and use those same boundaries throughout a performance period. This will eliminate the potential for inconsistencies in the extent of the network used to establish targets and calculate measures in urbanized areas and the non-urbanized area, and provide consistency in reporting established targets for those areas.

The urbanized area boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the year the Baseline Performance Report is due and are applicable to the entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved adjustments to an area boundary during the performance period for other reasons. Any changes in urbanized area boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for until the following performance period.

The FHWA is seeking comments on this approach for establishing optional additional targets for urbanized areas and the non-urbanized area. The FHWA would also like comments on any other flexibilities it could provide to or identify for State DOTs related to the voluntary establishment of additional targets. Some examples include:

• Providing options for establishing different additional targets throughout the State, particularly for the States' non-urbanized area; and

• Expanding the boundaries that can be used in establishing additional targets (

e.g.,

metropolitan planning area boundaries, city limit boundaries, etc.).

As described in § 490.105(f), an MPO would have the option to establish a quantifiable target for its metropolitan planning area. As described in 23 CFR 450.312, the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area include, at a minimum, the entire existing urbanized area (as defined by the Census Bureau) plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period. The FHWA recognizes the challenges in coordinating targets between State DOTs and MPOs, especially in cases where metropolitan planning areas across multiple State boundaries. The FHWA intends for State DOTs and MPOs to collectively consider goals and issues when establishing both State DOT and MPO targets. For reporting purposes, FHWA expects MPOs to report progress to the relevant State DOT for the entire metropolitan planning area.

To illustrate the differences in boundaries and how they might be addressed for one of the pavement condition measures, the following example is provided regarding the target establishment boundary differences that could exist in the State of Maryland today.

• Urbanized Areas: Based on the 2010 Census, the State of Maryland contains part or all of 11 urbanized areas. Of these urbanized areas, 5 are shared with neighboring States.

• Metropolitan Planning Areas: Currently, the State contains part or all of six metropolitan planning areas. Of these areas, four metropolitan planning areas are shared with neighboring States. (A map of Metropolitan Planning Areas and Urbanized Areas of the State of Maryland is included in the docket.)

• Statewide Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional State target for the Percentage of Interstate System lane-miles in Good condition within the State's urbanized areas would represent those portions of the 11 urbanized areas within the geographic boundary of the State of Maryland, in aggregate.

• Single Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional urbanized area target for a single urbanized area would represent the anticipated Percentage of Interstate System lane-mileage in Good condition within the identified urbanized area, based on the corresponding boundary described Baseline Performance Period Report. In the case of the Hagerstown urbanized area, the target would be established for the portion of the urbanized area in the State of Maryland.

• MPO Target Extent: Each of the six MPOs would establish individual targets for representing the anticipated Percentage of Interstate System lane-mileage in Good condition within their entire metropolitan planning area, regardless of State boundary. In the case of the Hagerstown—Eastern Panhandle MPO in Maryland/West Virginia/Pennsylvania, the MPO would establish target for Interstate System lane-mileage in Good pavement condition within its metropolitan planning boundary that extends beyond Maryland State boundary and into Pennsylvania State boundary, while the Maryland DOT would establish its target for the area only within its State boundary.

The FHWA is seeking comment on alternative approaches that could be considered to effectively implement 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2) considering the need for coordination required under 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II).

The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(4) that State DOTs establish targets with a 2-year time horizon (

i.e.,

2-year target) and a 4-year time horizon (

i.e.,

4-year target) for each performance period. Each performance period, defined in § 490.101, would begin on the January 1 of the year in which the State DOT target is reported (

i.e.,

State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report required in § 490.107(b)(1)) to FHWA and would extend for a duration of 4 years. Additionally, the midpoint of a performance period would occur 2 calendar years after the beginning of a performance period. Thus, 2-year targets would be the anticipated or intended condition/performance level at the midpoint of each performance period, and 4-year targets would be the anticipated or intended condition/performance level at the end of each performance period. It is important to emphasize that established targets (2-year target and 4-year target) would need to be considered as interim conditions/performance levels that lead toward the accomplishment of longer-term performance expectations in the State DOT's long-range statewide transportation plan

and NHS asset management plans.

As defined in § 490.101, a target is a numeric value that represents a quantifiable level of condition/performance in an expression defined by a measure. The FHWA proposes that a target would be a single numeric value representing the intended or anticipated condition/performance level at a specific point in time. For example, the proposed measure, Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition (§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for this measure would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, a 2-year target and a 4-year target would be 39.5% and 38.5%, respectively for

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

23 U.S.C. 135(f).

23 U.S.C. 119(e).

The FHWA is proposing this definitive performance period while recognizing that planning cycles and time-horizons for long-term performance expectations differ among State DOTs. The FHWA felt that although differences exist, it was necessary to utilize a 4-year performance period considering the following implementation expectations:

• Provide for a link between the interim, short-term targets (

i.e.,

2-year and 4-year time horizons) to individual State DOT's long-term performance expectations as part of performance-based planning and programming process;

• Ensure the time horizon is long enough to allow for condition/performance change to occur through the delivery of programmed projects;

• Align the schedule of reporting on targets and the evaluation of progress toward achieving the targets with the biennial performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e); and

• Report targets using a consistent performance period as part of the evaluation of the State DOTs' effectiveness of performance-based planning process to the Congress by October 1, 2017, as required by 23 U.S.C. 135(h).

The FHWA anticipates that the State DOTs would establish targets for the measures listed in § 490.105(c) and report the established targets to FHWA by the statutory deadline for the first biennial report of October 1, 2016.

The FHWA considered a number of alternatives for a consistent time horizon (

i.e.,

performance period) across the State DOTs to ensure consistent reporting of targets and assessment of progress toward achieving those targets for carrying out the requirements in the statutory provisions.

23 U.S.C. 150(e).

23 U.S.C. 150(e), 23 U.S.C. 135(h), and 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).

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

EP05JA15.003

As shown in Figure 1, for the first performance period, the latest measured condition/performance data through December 31, 2015, is the baseline condition/performance. The State DOTs would establish 2-year targets as the condition/performance anticipated at a midpoint, which would be indicated by the latest measured condition/performance data through the midpoint of the performance period (December 31, 2017, for the first performance period). Similarly, the State DOTs would establish 4-year targets as the condition/performance anticipated at the end of a performance period that would be indicated by the latest measured condition/performance data through the end of the performance period (December 31, 2019, for the first performance period). It is important to note that the frequency of data collection cycle depends on the individual measure. For example, the Interstate System pavement condition measures provided in § 490.307(a)(1) and (2) would require a data collection frequency of 1 year as specified in § 490.309(b)(1). Conversely, non-Interstate NHS condition measures, provided in § 490.307(a)(3) and (4), respectively, would require a data collection frequency of 2 years as specified in § 490.309(b)(2).

Data collection frequency requirements are defined in the Data Requirement sections for each measure in the relevant subparts. This proposed timeline is intended to: (1) Satisfy the first State DOT biennial performance report due on October 1, 2016, as described in the discussion on § 490.107; (2) accommodate data collection cycles; and (3) minimize the time lag between the end/midpoint of a performance period and the following biennial performance reporting date, as described in the discussion sections in §§ 490.107 and 490.109. Baseline condition and target establishment for subsequent performance periods would follow a similar timeline as the first performance period. The proposed 2-year and 4-year targets are timed so that the targets are on the same cycle as the biennial report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e), and are also necessary for FHWA to determine the significant progress for NHPP measures as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). The FHWA must make this determination every 2 years, after a State DOT submits each biennial report.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(5) that State DOTs report their established targets (2-year and 4-year) and progress toward achieving their targets in the biennial performance report required per 23 U.S.C. 150(e) as specified in § 490.107. As discussed in § 490.105(e)(2), State DOT coordination with relevant MPOs would be required for selection of targets. Thus, FHWA proposes that the State DOTs would be able to provide relevant MPOs' targets to FHWA, upon request, each time the relevant MPOs establish or adjust MPO targets, described in § 490.105(f).

The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs would need to consider many factors in establishing targets that could impact progress such as uncertainties in funding, changing priorities, and external factors (see § 490.109(e)(4)) outside the control of the State DOTs. Thus, FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(6) that State DOTs may adjust their established 4-year targets when they submit their State Biennial Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance period (

i.e.,

Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in § 490.107(b)(2)). This target adjustment allowance would be limited to this specific report and not allowed at any other time during the performance period. The FHWA feels that this frequency of adjustment allows a State DOT to address changes they could not have foreseen in the initial establishment of 4-year targets while still maintaining a sufficient level of control in the administrative procedure necessary to carry out these program requirements in an equitable manner. For example, the 4-year target established in 2016 (the 1st State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1) may be adjusted in 2018 (2nd State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1). The State DOT would report and justify this adjusted target in the second State Biennial Performance Report due on October 2018 (

i.e.,

Mid Performance Period Progress Report). The details of reporting requirements for adjusting a target are discussed in § 490.107(b)(2).

In § 490.105(e)(7), FHWA proposes that State DOTs are not required to establish their 2-year targets in the beginning of the first performance period (

i.e.,

the 1st State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1) for the Interstate System pavement condition measures, provided in § 490.307(a)(1) and (2). As proposed in the § 490.105(e)(4) discussion, the first performance period baseline condition/performance data would need to be collected prior to the start of the performance period for establishing targets. However, FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs may not be able to meet all data requirements in § 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the first proposed performance period for the Interstate System pavement condition measure. Thus, FHWA proposes that for the first performance period, State DOTs would only be required to establish their 4-year targets in the beginning of the first performance period (

i.e.,

the 1st State Biennial Performance Report in 2016 illustrated in Figure 1) for the Interstate System pavement condition measures. If necessary, the State DOTs would adjust their established 4-year targets at the midpoint of the first performance period (

i.e.,

the 2nd State Biennial Performance Report in 2018 illustrated in Figure 1) as described in § 490.105(e)(6).

Similar considerations should be made regarding baseline conditions/performance. For those State DOTs who may not be able to collect data required in § 490.309(b)(1) prior to the start of the first proposed performance period, FHWA proposes that such State DOTs would not be required to establish baseline condition/performance in the 1st State Biennial Performance Report in 2016, but would update baseline condition/performance with the 2-year condition/performance at the midpoint (2nd State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figure 1) in 2018. Also, at the midpoint of the first performance period, FHWA would determine the State DOT's 2-year targets for the Interstate System pavement condition measures as “progress not determined” for the 2-year significant progress determination as discussed in § 490.109(e)(3).

In § 490.105(f) FHWA proposes MPO requirements for the establishment of targets for all measures identified in § 490.105(c). These requirements are being proposed to implement the 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B) target establishment provisions in a manner that provides for a level of consistency necessary to evaluate and report progress at an MPO and the national level while providing for a degree of flexibility to support metropolitan planning needs. The FHWA also attempted to develop these target establishment requirements so that they could be met by all MPOs, recognizing that MPOs currently vary in capability, resource availability, and ability to establish performance targets.

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C), FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(1) that each MPO would establish 4-year targets no later than 180 days after the relevant State DOT establishes its targets, described in the discussion of § 490.105(e)(1). The FHWA recognizes the burden on MPOs, regardless of size, to establish targets. In addition, MPOs are not directly subject to the requirement to evaluate the progress toward achieving NHPP targets. As a result, FHWA proposes in this section that MPOs would not be required to

establish 2-year targets, which are required of State DOTs under § 409.105(d)(4). Thus, in case of the first performance period, FHWA anticipates that the State DOTs would establish targets for the measures listed in § 490.105(c) prior to the first State DOT biennial performance report, and the MPOs would establish targets no later than 180 days thereafter. The timeline for target establishment for State DOTs is illustrated in Figure 1 in the discussion of § 490.105(e)(4). If the rule is effective on or after September 30, 2015, MPOs may not have the opportunity to establish their own targets in time for States to consider those MPO targets when submitting the 1st Baseline Performance Period Report. The MPOs would be required to establish targets for all applicable measures.

Similar to the requirement for State DOTs, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(2) that MPOs coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) to establish consistent targets, to the maximum extent practicable. This would be done in accordance with 23 CFR part 450.

As part of the MPO-State DOT coordination in establishing State DOT and MPO targets described in the discussion of § 490.105(e)(2) and (f)(2), FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(3) that the MPOs establish targets with a 4-year performance period identical to the State DOT's performance periods discussed in the Section-by-Section for §§ 490.101 and 490.105(e)(4). It is important to emphasize that established MPO targets (4-year target) must be considered as interim conditions/performance levels that lead toward the accomplishment of longer-term performance expectations in the longer-term performance expectations in the MPO's Metropolitan Transportation Plan

and relevant State DOT NHS asset management plans.

23 U.S.C. 134(i).

23 U.S.C. 119(e).

The FHWA recognizes the burden on the MPOs to establish their own performance targets. Consequently, as proposed, the MPOs would have the flexibility to establish their targets using one of two options. The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(4) that MPOs would establish targets, specific to the metropolitan planning area, by either: (1) Agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT targets, or (2) committing to quantifiable targets for their metropolitan planning area. This proposal would give MPOs two options to establish targets. The MPOs could establish their own quantifiable targets. Alternatively, recognizing that the resource level and capability of some MPOs to reliably predict performance outcomes varies across the country, FHWA is proposing an approach that would allow MPOs that did not want to establish their own quantifiable target to establish targets by supporting the State DOT targets for performance. The MPOs would do this through their investment decisionmaking process. Regardless of which option MPOs use to establish targets, FHWA recognizes that the MPOs may need to work with relevant State DOTs to coordinate, plan, and program projects for their planning area.

As stated in the § 490.105(e)(6) discussion, State DOTs may adjust their established 4-year targets when they submit their State Biennial Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance period (

i.e.,

Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in § 490.107(b)(2)). The MPOs are required to establish targets 180 days after the date on which the relevant State DOT(s) establishes their targets, per the MPO target establishment requirements specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT adjusts a target, as allowed under the proposed §§ 490.105(e)(6) and 490.107(b)(2), any relevant MPOs would be required to also re-establish targets for the same measures within 180 days. However, FHWA is proposing that the MPO only be required to re-establish the target if the MPO had originally elected to establish a target supporting the State DOT target for that measure. In that case the adjusted State target could directly impact an MPO's investment decisionmaking. Specifically, FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(7) that if a State DOT adjusts their 4-year target in the State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report and the MPO established the relevant target by supporting the State DOT target as allowed under § 490.105(f)(4), then the MPO would be required, within 180 days, to report to the State DOT if they either: (1) Agree to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of State DOT adjusted target, or (2) commit to a new quantifiable 4-year target.

As with State DOTs, FHWA recognizes that MPOs would need to consider many factors in establishing targets, such as uncertainties in funding, changing priorities, and external factors outside the control of the MPO. Thus, FHWA proposes in § 490.105(f)(8) that MPOs may adjust their established 4-year target in a manner that is consistent with agreed upon terms documented in the relevant Metropolitan Planning Agreement. The FHWA recognizes that for many MPOs the establishment of targets, especially for the first performance period, would be new and challenging and that there may be a need to revisit targets during the 4-year performance period. The FHWA requires State DOTs and MPOs to coordinate with each other throughout the performance period with respect to any target adjustments so their targets are consistent to the maximum extent practicable.

In § 490.105(f)(9), FHWA proposes that the method by which MPOs would report their established baseline condition/performance, targets, and progress toward achieving targets would be as specified in § 490.107(c). The FHWA further proposes in 490.105(f)(9) that the State would be able to provide MPO targets to FHWA on request after targets are established or adjusted by MPOs within the State. The FHWA believes that, through the coordination between a State DOT and relevant MPOs, the reporting on MPO progress can be shared between these two entities. However, FHWA expects to be able to request from a State DOT the MPO targets and reports on progress, as needed, to better understand performance expectations and outcomes in urbanized areas across the country. The State DOT and MPO would document the target establishment reporting process in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement, in accordance with 23 CFR 450. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to work with multiple MPOs to agree on a process for reporting that would provide a sufficient level of consistency to understand performance in urbanized areas collectively across the State.

Discussion of § 490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e), State DOTs are required to submit reports on performance targets and progress in achieving established targets to FHWA not later than October 1, 2016, and every 2 years thereafter. The FHWA evaluated whether there were any existing reports that could be used to meet these 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting requirements. For the non-HSIP related measures, FHWA determined that none of the existing reporting requirements met the statutorily required timing. In addition, none of the existing reports currently provide the consistency needed to implement performance management nationally. For these reasons, FHWA proposes a new biennial report to meet the statutory requirements.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107 for State DOT performance reporting to be used—

• In the determination of significant progress toward achieving NHPP targets;

• to provide some of the information needed for FHWA to report to Congress on the performance-based planning process evaluation of each State DOT as required by 23 U.S.C. 135(h);

• to understand performance needs, expectations, and progress at a State, regional, and national level; and

• to provide for transparency by communicating the content of the report to the public on an externally facing Web site in a downloadable format.

In § 490.107(a), FHWA proposes that all performance targets described in § 490.105 would be subject to biennial performance reporting in this section. However, reporting on performance targets for carrying out the HSIP would be in accordance with § 490.213. In the National Performance Measures; HSIP NPRM, FHWA proposed a 1 calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target establishment, and reporting. As discussed in § 490.101 of that NPRM, a 1-year period was proposed to align the safety measures with the requirements for the common measures reported as a requirement of 23 U.S.C. 402. The FHWA also proposes that State DOTs use an electronic template to deliver the report proposed in this section. The FHWA intends to provide additional guidance regarding the template which will include fields to capture all of the information that would be required to be reported under this rulemaking.

For consistent State DOT and FHWA reporting, FHWA proposed a 4-year performance period in § 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA recognizes the need for uniform data collection timing in order to ensure consistency in reporting and repeatable target establishment and progress evaluation processes. Thus, in subsequent sections, FHWA proposes the timing of data collection based on the specified performance periods, described in § 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA proposes that data collection requirements for the established measures support the reporting requirements in this section and be in accordance with the respective Data Requirements section (

e.g.,

§ 490.309) for each measure. To ensure consistency in reporting, FHWA proposes that the reported baseline condition/performance be derived from the latest data collected through the begin date of a performance period, the reported actual 2-year condition/performance would be derived from the latest data collected through the midpoint of a performance period, and the reported actual 4-year condition/performance would be derived from the latest data collected through the end date of a performance period. This is illustrated in Figure 1 in the discussion for § 490.105(e)(4).

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b) that State DOTs submit to FHWA three types of Biennial Performance Reports: Baseline Performance Period Report, Mid Performance Period Progress Report and Full Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes to make a distinction between the three reports to emphasize the differences in content while aligning the reporting process to the proposed target establishment, progress evaluation, and other performance reporting requirements. Figure 2 is a timeline of the proposed reporting timeline for the Biennial Performance Reports. The proposed requirements identify three distinct biennial reports (baseline, mid and full) and State DOTs will be expected to provide information for at least one of these reports every 2 years. Because these reports would be required for consecutive 4-year performance periods, the information provided in the Full Performance Period Report would be provided at the same time and may include some of the same information as the Baseline Performance Period Report for the next performance period. As discussed previously, FHWA is proposing to provide for an electronic template that State DOTs would use to capture the information required in each of the three reports discussed in § 490.107(b). It is envisioned that this electronic template would provide the State DOT all of the relevant fields for the information that would be due at the corresponding 2-year point. This approach would allow State DOTs to provide all of the required baseline and progress reporting information at one time. The proposed regulations identify three distinct reports to clarify the purpose and timing of information that would be required to be reported every 2 years.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

EP05JA15.004

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Baseline Performance Period Report in § 490.107(b)(1), where the State DOTs would be required to submit a Baseline Performance Period Report no later than October 1 of the first year of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2016, which would require State DOTs to submit their first Baseline Performance Period Report no later than October 1, 2016. Subsequent Baseline Performance Period Reports would be due no later than October 1 every 4 years thereafter.

The required contents for the Baseline Performance Period Report are discussed in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii). The FHWA is proposing that the Baseline Performance Period Report would be the official source of the non-safety targets established by the State DOT. To document the established targets, FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A) that State DOTs would report both their established 2-year and 4-year targets for each measure listed in 490.105(c) for the current performance period. Considering the proposed phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement condition measures discussed in § 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not be required to report 2-year targets for Interstate System pavement measures in the Baseline Performance Period Report

for the first performance period. If a State DOT elects to establish additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas, as described in § 490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would be required to include these targets (both 2-year target and 4-year target) in the report.

Although FHWA would not approve the State DOT submitted targets, a discussion of the basis for each established target would be included in the Baseline Performance Period Report. The FHWA believes that this discussion is needed to explain the State DOT's basis for the selection of a target. The FHWA intends to publish the State DOT established targets on a publicly available Web site with the target basis discussion. It is important to note that, although other MAP-21 required plans and reports may discuss and use targets, FHWA is proposing that only the targets reported in the Baseline Performance Period Report and the HSIP report would be viewed by FHWA as those that are established by the State DOT to meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150(d).

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B) that the State DOTs report baseline condition/performance associated with each target reported to represent the latest condition/performance data collected through the begin date of a performance period. Considering the first performance period is proposed to begin on January 1, 2016, the baseline condition/performance for this performance period would be the most recent condition/performance that represents actual condition/performance through December 31, 2015. Considering the proposed phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement condition measures discussed in § 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would not be required to report baseline conditions for Interstate System pavement measures in the Baseline Performance Period Report for the first performance period. If a State DOT elects to establish additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas as described in § 490.105(e)(3), the State DOT would report baseline condition/performance that represent these areas in addition to the statewide baseline condition/performance. As an example, for the Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition (§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a baseline condition/performance for this measure would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, baseline condition/performance would be 37.7% for the proposed measure Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs would be required to also include a discussion in the Baseline Performance Period Report, to the maximum extent practical, of how the established 2-year and 4-year targets support longer term performance expectations in other performance-related plans, such as the State asset management plan and the long-range statewide transportation plan.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) that State DOTs would be required to report the geographic boundaries and Decennial Census population data used to determine target scope, IRI rating and establish any additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. Similarly, in § 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required to report the NHS network limits used for target establishment. The State DOT would report both the urbanized area boundaries and NHS limits used for target establishment by identifying the corresponding data inventory year of the HPMS that includes this information. Using HPMS data items for the data year identified by the State, FHWA would be able to extract pavement and bridge condition data for the appropriate NHS and/or urbanized area the State DOT used to establish targets. The FHWA would use this information in making its progress determinations in future years. It is the State's responsibility to ensure that the data entered into HPMS reflects the information that is used for target establishment.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

EP05JA15.005

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Mid Performance Period Progress Report in § 490.107(b)(2). In § 490.107(b)(2)(i), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required to submit a Mid Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1 of the third year of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2016, which would require State DOTs to submit their first Mid Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1, 2018, and subsequent Mid Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no later than October 1 every 4 years thereafter.

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents for the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required to report 2-year condition/performance in each Mid Performance Period Progress Report. As exhibited in Figure 3, FHWA proposes that the 2-year condition/performance would be reported to represent the actual condition/performance derived from the latest measured condition/performance through the midpoint of a performance period. Considering the first performance period is proposed to begin

on January 1, 2016, 2-year condition/performance for this performance period would be the most recent conditions/performance that represents actual conditions/performance through December 31, 2017 (illustrated in Figure 3).

Considering the proposed phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement condition measures discussed in § 490.105(e)(7), State DOTs would be required to report the 2-year actual Interstate System pavement conditions as the baseline condition by updating their Baseline Performance Period Report for the first performance period.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) that State DOTs would also include a discussion of progress made toward the achievement of 2-year targets established for the current performance period. In this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 2-year condition/performance with the 2-year targets that were established for the performance period. For example, in the first Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2018, a State would compare the actual condition/performance through 2017 with the 2-year targets established for the first performance period and discuss why targets were or were not achieved. This discussion could describe accomplishments achieved, planned activities, circumstances that led to actual conditions/performance, or any other information that State DOT feel would adequately explain progress. Although this explanation would not be used in the determination of significant progress, as described in § 490.109, this information would be made available to the public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes achieved. As an example, the Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition (§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a 2-year condition/performance for this measure would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 2-year condition/performance would be 39.2% for the proposed measure Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) that, in each Mid Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussion on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State asset management plan for the NHS. The FHWA is reserving § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(D). The statutory requirement for State DOTs to include a discussion on ways in which State DOTs are addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the third Performance Measure NPRM. This content is required as part of the report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4). The FHWA recognizes that the Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the first performance period may be impacted by the timing of the implementation of the new NHS asset management plan requirement. The FHWA intends to issue further guidance if the timing of this plan would impact a State DOT's ability to comply with the requirements proposed in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C).

As discussed in § 490.105(e)(6), FHWA recognizes the challenges that State DOTs may face in target establishment and, as a result, proposes to allow State DOTs to adjust their 4-year targets. The FHWA is proposing in § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(E) that State DOTs would report any adjustments to their 4-year targets in the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes that this target adjustment allowance would be limited to this specific report and not allowed prior to, or following, the submittal of the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. For example, if a State DOT elects to adjust a 4-year target established in its first Baseline Performance Period Report in 2016, the State DOT would only be able to adjust the 4-year target in its Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2018. In addition to reporting the adjusted 4-year target, the State DOT would be required to include a discussion on the basis for the adjusted 4-year target(s) for the performance period and a discussion on how the adjusted targets support expectations documented in longer range plans, such as the State asset management plan and the long-range statewide transportation plan.

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the 2-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period Report that would had been established for the NHPP measures specified in § 490.105(c)(1) through (3).

Additionally, State DOTs would provide information to discuss how the actual 2-year condition/performance levels compare with the NHPP targets. Although this discussion would not be used in the determination of significant progress for the NHPP, this information would be made available to the public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes related to the NHPP. For example, the State DOT may use this discussion to explain how they effectively and efficiently delivered a program designed to achieve 2-year targets, how this may have resulted in actual condition/performance improvements for the NHPP, and how the State DOT would deliver a program to make significant progress toward achieving 4-year targets for the NHPP.

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

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were outside of their control that impacted its ability to make significant progress for the NHPP 2-year targets. This discussion would be used by FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration of extenuating circumstances discussed in § 490.109(e)(4).

In § 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(H), FHWA proposes that if FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement of NHPP targets, in two consecutive biennial FHWA determinations, then the State DOT would include a description of the actions they will undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if either of the Interstate pavement condition targets did not make significant progress in previous two determinations (determinations at midpoint and the end of previous performance period), then the State DOT would include in the current Mid Performance Period Report a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake to improve conditions with respect to both Interstate pavement condition measure. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to include such description in the Mid Performance Period Progress Report.

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

EP05JA15.007

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C

The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Full Performance Period Progress Report in § 490.107(b)(3). In § 490.107 (b)(3)(i), FHWA proposes that State DOTs be required to submit a Full Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1 of the first year following the completion of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2016, which would require State DOTs to submit their first Full Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1, 2020, and subsequent Full Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no later than October 1 every 4 years thereafter.

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents for Full Performance Period Progress Report.

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required to report 4-year condition/performance in each Full Performance Period Progress Report. As exhibited in Figure 4, FHWA proposes that the 4-year condition/performance be reported

to represent the actual condition/performance derived from the latest measured condition/performance through the end of a performance period. Considering the first performance period is proposed to begin on January 1, 2016, the 4-year condition/performance for this performance period would be the most recent conditions/performance that represents actual conditions/performance through December 31, 2019 (illustrated in Figure 4). As an example, the Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition measure (in § 490.307(a)(1)), would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition (§ 490.307(f)(2)) expressed in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a 4-year condition/performance for this measure would be a percentage of lane-miles of the Interstate System in Good condition expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, 4-year condition/performance would be 37.7% for the proposed measure Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B), that the State DOTs would also include a discussion of progress made toward the achievement of 4-year targets established for the relevant performance period. In this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 4-year condition/performance with the 4-year targets that were established for the performance period. For example, in the first Full Performance Period Progress Report in 2020, a State would compare the actual condition/performance through 2019 with the 4-year targets established for the first performance period and discuss why targets were or were not achieved. This discussion could describe accomplishments achieved, planned activities, circumstances that led to actual conditions/performance or any other information that State DOT would feel would adequately explain progress. Although this explanation would not be used in the determination of significant progress, this information would be made available to the public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes achieved.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) that, in each Full Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussion on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State asset management plan for the NHS. The FHWA is reserving § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(D). The statutory requirement for State DOTs to include a discussion on ways in which State DOTs are addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan, will be addressed in the third Performance Measure NPRM. This content is required as part of the report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4).

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the 4-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period Report, or adjusted in the current Mid Performance Period Progress Report, that would had been established for the NHPP measures specified in § 490.105(c)(1) through (3).

Additionally, State DOTs would provide information to discuss how the actual 4-year condition/performance levels compare with the NHPP targets. Although this discussion would not be used in the determination of significant progress for the NHPP, this information would be made available to the public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes related to the NHPP. For example, the State DOT may use this discussion to explain how they effectively and efficiently delivered a program designed to achieve targets and how this may have resulted in actual condition/performance improvements for the NHPP.

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

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were outside of their control that impacted its ability to make significant progress for the NHPP 4-year targets. This discussion would be used by FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration of extenuating circumstances discussed in § 490.109(e)(5).

In § 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA proposes that if FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward the achievement NHPP targets, in two consecutive biennial FHWA determinations, then the State DOT would include a description of the actions they would undertake to better achieve NHPP targets as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). For example, if either of the NHS bridge condition targets did not make significant progress in previous two determinations (determination at the end of previous performance period and determination at the midpoint of current performance period), then the State DOT would include in the current Full Performance Period Report) a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake to improve conditions with respect to both Interstate pavement condition measures. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has achieved significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to include such description in the Full Performance Period Progress Report.

The FHWA proposes, in § 490.107(c), that MPOs document the manner in which they report their established targets within the Metropolitan Planning Agreement required by 23 CFR 450. The MPOs would report their established targets to the relevant State DOTs in a manner that is agreed upon by both parties and documented in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement. The FHWA proposes in § 490.105(e)(5), that MPOs would report targets to the State DOT in a manner that would allow the State DOT to provide FHWA, upon request, all of the targets established by relevant MPOs. The FHWA also proposes that MPOs would report baseline condition/performance, and progress toward the achievement of their targets, in the system performance report in the metropolitan transportation plan, in accordance with 23 CFR 450.

Discussion of § 490.109 Assessing Significant Progress Towards Achieving the Performance Targets for the NHPP

In § 490.109, FHWA proposes the method by which FHWA would determine if a State DOT has achieved or is making significant progress toward the achievement of their NHPP performance targets as required by 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). Although this determination could directly impact State DOTs, MPOs could also be indirectly impacted as a result of the link between metropolitan and statewide planning and programming decisionmaking. This rulemaking discusses the approach that would be taken by FHWA to assess State DOT performance progress, but does not include a discussion on the method that may be used by FHWA to assess the performance progress of MPOs. Interested persons should refer to the updates to the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations for any discussions on the review of MPO performance progress. (RIN 2125-AF52).

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

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

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

The FHWA recognizes that the State DOTs and MPOs have to consider multiple performance priorities in making investment trade-off decisions and that there are challenges with balancing local and national objectives. During outreach, stakeholders raised a number of concerns regarding progress assessment, including:

AASHTO (2013),

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

• The desire to foster balanced and sound decisions rather than focusing on achieving one target at the expense of another;

• the desire to assess progress using quantitative and qualitative input; and

• the desire to avoid unachievable targets.

Thus, FHWA plans to implement an approach that balances the uncertainty facing State DOTs in predicting future performance with the need to provide for a fair and consistent process to determine compliance. The approach being proposed by FHWA is based on the following principles:

• Focus the Federal-aid highway program on the MAP-21 national goals in 23 U.S.C. 150(b); and

• recognize that State DOTs need to consider fiscal constraints in their target establishment.

Because targets would be established for an entire system, FHWA acknowledges that State DOTs may make small incremental changes within that system that would not necessarily appear in a quantitative assessment. In some instances, even a modest increase in improvement when evaluating on a system-wide basis, would constitute significant progress. Accordingly, FHWA proposes that for each NHPP target, progress toward the achievement of the target would be considered “significant” when either of the following occur: The actual condition/performance level is equal to or better than the State DOT established target; or actual condition/performance is better than the State DOT identified baseline condition/performance. The FHWA believes that any improvement over the baseline, which represents a 0.1% improvement over 4 years, should be viewed as significant progress considering the fiscal short falls and financial uncertainties many State DOTs are faced with today. Although a change of 0.1% may appear insignificant, this degree of improvement to a pavement or bridge system is difficult to achieve. In many States this level of change would require improvements to hundreds, if not thousands, of miles of pavements and/or bridges. The FHWA reviewed the extent to which State DOTs have been able to actually change system conditions of their pavements and bridges in recent years to validate this view of significant progress. This review supported FHWA's belief that any improvement should be considered significant as many State DOTs have seen minimal or no improvements in the condition of their pavement and bridge networks in recent years. This is the case even with the influx of funding State DOTs were able to utilize through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. For these reasons, FHWA believes that any improvement over the baseline should be viewed as significant progress.

The FHWA believes that State DOTs would, through a transparent and public process, want to establish or adjust targets that strive to improve the overall performance of the Interstate and National Highway systems. For this reason, FHWA did not want to consider an approach to determine significant progress that would be difficult to meet as it could discourage the establishment of “reach” targets due to the perceived unmanageable risks that would need to be assumed by State DOTs. The FHWA feels that the progress assessment approach proposed in this NPRM, which considers improvement from baseline conditions to be significant, would not discourage State DOTs from establishing targets to improve the overall conditions of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS.

The FHWA therefore proposes a three-step process to determine if a State DOT has made significant progress toward the achievement of their NHPP targets. This proposed process would be completed by FHWA each time the State DOT submits their Mid Performance Period Progress Report and their Full Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes that the significant progress determination process for two consecutive reporting periods would be done on an ongoing basis and would not restart at the beginning of each performance period.

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

• Step 1: The State DOT would evaluate and report the progress they have made toward the achievement of each target.

This evaluation would be documented in the discussion of the progress achieved since the most recent report. The State DOT would document in their Biennial Performance Reports any extenuating circumstances outside their control they may have impacted their ability to achieve progress.

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

• Step 2: The FHWA would review the completeness of the content provided in their Biennial Performance Reports and would determine if any documented extenuating circumstances would be considered. State DOTs would provide any additional information to FHWA, upon request, if the report is incomplete.

• Step 3: The FHWA would determine if the State DOT has made significant progress for each target using the following sources:

○ Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for pavement condition measures, as specified in § 490.105(c)(1) and (2);

○ Data contained in the NBI for targets established for bridge condition measures, as specified in § 490.105(c)(3); and

In § 490.109(a), FHWA proposes that it would determine whether the State DOT has achieved or has made significant progress toward achieving each of the State DOT targets for the NHPP measures separately.

The FHWA proposes in § 490.109(b) that FHWA would determine whether a State DOT has or has not made significant progress toward the achievement of NHPP targets at the midpoint and the en

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.