# National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2017-00681 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** January 18, 2017 - **Citation:** 82 FR 5970 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 490 [Docket No. FHWA-2013-0054] RIN 2125-AF54 National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule is the third and last in a series of three related rulemakings that together establishes a set of performance measures for State departments of transportation (State DOT) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to use as required by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The measures in this third final rule will be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) for the purpose of carrying out the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP); to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. This third performance measure final rule also includes a discussion that summarizes all three of the national performance management measures rules and the comprehensive regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to include all three final rules. DATES: This final rule is February 17, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Francine Shaw Whitson, Office of Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028; for legal information: Alla Shaw, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0740, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published at 81 FR 23806 on April 22, 2016. A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, and all background material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov . Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.ofr.gov and the Government Publishing Office's Web site at http://www.gpo.gov . Table of Contents for Supplementary Information I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action B. Summary of the Major Changes Made to the Regulatory Action in Question C. Costs and Benefits II. Acronyms and Abbreviations III. Background IV. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking V. Response to Comments A. Significant Issues Raised in Comments 1. Summary of Significant Issues Raised in the Comments 2. Summary of Major Changes Made in Response to These Comments B. Subpart A—General Information 1. Implementation Date Alignment and Coordination 2. Reporting and Implementation Dates 3. Accessibility and Connectivity 4. Definition of Mainline Highway 5. Data Processing and Conflation of Datasets 6. Population Estimates 7. Replacement of Missing Travel Time Data 8. Segment Lengths 9. NHS Coverage in the NPMRDS Data 10. Travel Times 11. Alternative Data Sets 12. Corridors 13. Weather and Construction Impacts 14. Holidays 15. Annual Reporting of Travel Time Metrics 16. Establishing Performance Targets 17. Target Establishment Frequency 18. Target Adjustment Schedule 19. Ownership and Applicability of Measures/Targets 20. Fiscal or Calendar Year Based Performance Periods 21. Boundaries 22. Unified Targets 23. CMAQ Measures Applicability 24. Due Date for Initial Performance Reports 25. MPO Reporting 26. Optional Target Reporting 27. Significant Progress Determination C. Subpart E—National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP System Performance 1. Establishment of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure 2. Removal of Peak Hour Travel Time Reliability Measures 3. NHPP Reliability a. Reliability—Use of Traffic Volumes Versus People Traveling b. Applicability of the Non-Interstate NHS NHPP Reliability Measure c. Excluding Weekends From LOTTR Calculations Time Periods for LOTTR Calculations d. Use of 1.50 Threshold To Determine Reliable Segments D. Subpart F—National Performance Management Measures for Freight Movement on the Interstate 1. Removal of Truck Congestion Measure 2. Consistency Between All-Vehicle and Freight Reliability Measures 3. Relationship Between the Freight Measure Provisions and the National Freight Program and State Freight Planning 4. Weighting by Truck Volume 5. Vehicle Classes 6. Definition of Freight Bottlenecks E. Subpart G—National Performance Measures for CMAQ Program—Traffic Congestion 1. Excessive Delay Measure a. Applying Peak Hours to Excessive Delay Measure To Create Peak Hour Excessive Delay b. Peak Hour Time Periods c. Traffic Volume Profiles d. Person Throughput Versus Vehicle Throughput e. Thresholds f. Use of Population for Normalization g. Census Annual Population Estimates in Lieu of Decennial Values h. Outliers in Speed Data 2. Decision To Include a Multimodal Measure 3. Data for Multimodal Measure 4. Applicability of the CMAQ Traffic Congestion Measures F. Subpart H—National Performance Measure for the CMAQ Program—On Road Mobile Source Emissions 1. General Comments 2. Concerns about MPO Targets and Reporting 3. Applicability 4. Applicability of New Standards 5. Reporting 6. Concerns Related to Quantification of Emissions 7. Application Beyond CMAQ Projects 8. Attainment Definition—Removal of Areas Beyond 20-Year Maintenance Plan 9. Modification of Emissions Information at 2-Year Report 10. Concerns about the CMAQ Public Access System Data—Use of Observed Data and Other Alternative Methods 11. Applicability of Measure to All Criteria Pollutants and Precursors 12. Use of Standard System Versus Metric System To Measure Emissions VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program A. Subpart A—General Information B. Subpart E—National Performance Management Measures for the NHPP System Performance C. Subpart F—National Performance Management Measures for Freight Movement on the Interstate D. Subpart G—National Performance Measures for CMAQ Program—Traffic Congestion E. Subpart H—National Performance Measure for the CMAQ Program—On Road Mobile Source Emissions VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices: Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment) E. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. National Environmental Policy Act H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children) K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) M. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) N. Privacy Impact Assessment O. Regulation Identifier Number 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 a framework to support improved investment decisionmaking through a focus on performance outcomes for key national transportation goals. As part of performance management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds will make transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make progress toward the following national goals: • Safety—To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. • 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. The purpose of this final rule is to implement MAP-21 and FAST Act (PL 114-94) performance management requirements. Prior to MAP-21, there were no explicit requirements for State DOTs to demonstrate how their transportation program supported national performance outcomes. State DOTs were not required to measure condition or performance, establish targets, assess progress toward targets, or report on condition or performance in a nationally consistent manner that FHWA could use to assess the entire system. Without States reporting on the above factors, it is difficult for FHWA to examine the effectiveness of the Federal-aid highway program as a means to address surface transportation performance at a national level. This final rule is one of several rulemakings to implement MAP-21's new performance management framework. The collective rulemakings will establish the regulations needed to more effectively evaluate and report on surface transportation performance across the Nation. This final rule will: • Provide for greater consistency in the reporting of condition and performance; • Establish specific national performance measures to be used to assess performance of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate and CMAQ traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions; • Require the establishment of targets that can be aggregated at the national level; • Improve transparency by requiring consistent reporting on progress through a public reporting system; • Require State DOTs to make significant progress toward meeting their targets; and • Establish requirements for State DOTs that have not met or made significant progress toward achieving their NHPP and NHFP targets. State DOTs and MPOs will be expected to use the information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to inform their transportation planning and programming decisions. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid highway program that result from this rule will provide FHWA the ability to better communicate a national performance story and to assess the impacts of Federal funding investments more reliably. The FHWA is in the process of creating a new public Web site to help communicate the national performance story and display State DOT performance reports. The Web site will likely include infographics, tables, charts, and descriptions of the performance data that State DOTs will be reporting to FHWA. The FHWA is required to establish performance measures to assess performance in 12 areas 1 generalized as follows: (1) Serious injuries per vehicle miles traveled (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) performance of the Interstate System; (9) performance of the non-Interstate NHS; (10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) traffic congestion; and (12) on-road mobile source emissions. This rulemaking is the third of three that establish performance measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess performance in each of these 12 areas. This final rule establishes national performance measures for the NHPP, freight movement, and the CMAQ program (numbers 8 through 12 in the above list). See Table 1 for a summary of all measures. 1 These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance or condition. The final measures in this rule have been adjusted in response to comments, and those changes are summarized in Section I.B of the Executive Summary. Details about data requirements and calculation methodologies for each measure can be found in Section VI. Three measures are established for assessing the performance of the NHS under the NHPP. Two measures assess reliability: (1) Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate System That Are Reliable (the Interstate Travel Time Reliability measure); and (2) Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS That Are Reliable (the Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability measure). Together they are the Travel Time Reliability measures. Both of these measures assess Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR), defined as the ratio of the 80th percentile travel time to a “normal” travel time (50th percentile). Data are derived from the travel time data set using either the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) or equivalent. A third measure, Percent Change in Tailpipe CO 2 Emissions on the NHS from the Calendar Year 2017, assesses environmental performance. This measure is calculated using data on fuel use and VMT. The performance measure to assess freight movement on the Interstate is Percentage of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel Times, or Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index (the Freight Reliability measure). The measure also uses the Travel Time Data Set of NPRMDS, but unlike the LOTTR which uses a threshold to determine reliability, TTTR Index is expressed as an average for the entire applicable area. Three measures are established under the CMAQ program (the CMAQ measures) including two measures for traffic congestion: (1) Annual Hours of Peak-Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita (the PHED measure); and (2) Percent of Non-SOV Travel where SOV stands for single-occupancy vehicle. Data for these two measures are derived from the travel time data set of NPMRDS. The second measure is a new measure developed to recognize the role of lower-emissions modes in meeting air quality goals. State DOTs and MPOs have three options for providing data for this measure. The third measure under the CMAQ program is Total Emissions Reduction. This measure uses data from the CMAQ Public Access System to calculate total emission reductions for applicable criteria pollutants or precursors. A summary of all the national performance management measures rulemakings are listed in Table 1 below. Table 1—Summary of Rulemakings To Implement the National Performance Management Measure Rules Rulemaking 23 CFR part 490 section Final performance measures Measure applicability Safety PM Final Rule 490.207(a)(1) Number of fatalities All public roads. 490.207(a)(2) Rate of fatalities All public roads. 490.207(a)(3) Number of serious injuries All public roads. 490.207(a)(4) Rate of serious injuries All public roads. 490.207(a)(5) Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries All public roads. Infrastructure PM Final Rule 490.307(a)(1) Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good condition The Interstate System. 490.307(a)(2) Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in in Poor condition The Interstate System. 490.307(a)(3) Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Good condition The non-Interstate NHS. 490.307(a)(4) Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition The non-Interstate NHS. 490.407(c)(1) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Good condition NHS. 490.407(c)(2) Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in Poor condition NHS. System Performance PM Final Rule 490.507(a)(1) Percent of the Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate That Are Reliable The Interstate System. 490.507(a)(2) Percent of the Person-Miles Traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS That Are Reliable The non-Interstate NHS. 490.507(b) Percent Change in Tailpipe CO 2 Emissions on the NHS Compared to the Calendar Year 2017 Level NHS. 490.607 Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index The Interstate System. 490.707(a) 490.707(b) Annual Hours of Peak Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita Percent of Non-SOV Travel. The NHS in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million for the first performance period and in urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 for the second and all other performance periods that are also in nonattainment or maintenance areas for ozone (O 3 ), carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). 490.807 Total Emissions Reduction All projects financed with funds from the 23 U.S.C. 149 CMAQ program apportioned to State DOTs in areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for ozone (O 3 ), carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). In addition, this final rule establishes the process for State DOTs and MPOs to establish and report targets and the process that FHWA will use to assess the progress State DOTs have made in achieving targets. State DOTs will be required to establish performance targets and assess performance in the above mentioned 12 areas established by MAP-21, and FHWA will assess 2 their progress toward meeting targets in 10 of these areas 3 in accordance with MAP-21 and the FAST Act. State DOTs that fail to meet or make significant progress toward targets in a biennial performance reporting period will be required to document the actions they will undertake to achieve their targets in their next biennial performance report. Failure to make progress in the safety metrics requires additional actions as outlined in the published Safety final rule. 2 23 U.S.C. 148(i) and 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7). 3 Serious injuries per vehicle VMT; fatalities per VMT; number of serious injuries; number of fatalities; pavement condition on the Interstate System; pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS; bridge condition on the NHS; performance of the Interstate System; performance of the non-Interstate NHS under MAP-21; and freight movement on the Interstate System under the FAST Act. The FHWA received extensive and substantive comments on the NPRM. The FHWA made significant alterations to the measures in response to these comments, and a summary of major issues raised can be found at the beginning of Section V, with detailed responses following. The FHWA also recognizes that data collection and analytic capacity are not yet developed enough to respond effectively to many commenters' suggestions, particularly in measuring multimodal performance. Therefore, FHWA is working to develop more sophisticated performance metrics and may issue an updated rulemaking on performance measures related to person throughput and multi-modal performance in the future, following completion of ongoing research regarding multimodal system performance measures in Fall 2018. Lastly, FHWA recognizes that implementation of the performance management requirements in this final rule will evolve with time for a variety of reasons such as: The introduction of new technologies that allow for the collection of more nationally consistent and/or reliable performance data; shifts in national priorities for the focus of a goal area; new federal requirements; or the emergence of improved approaches to measure condition/performance in supporting investment decisions and national goals. The FHWA is committed to performing a retrospective review of this rule after the first performance period, to assess the effectiveness of the requirements to identify any necessary changes to better support investment decisions through performance-based planning and programming and to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. In implementation of this rule, FHWA realizes that there are multiple ways that State DOTs and MPOs can make decisions to achieve more efficient and cost effective investments; as part of a retrospective review, FHWA will also utilize implementation surveys to identify how agencies complying with the rule are developing their programs and selecting their projects to achieve targets. B. Summary of the Major Changes Made to the Regulatory Action in Question This final rule retains the majority of the major provisions of the NPRM, but it makes the following significant changes. • Removing the proposed NHFP measure for percentage of the Interstate congested. • Merging the proposed peak-hour travel time measure under NHPP with the proposed excessive delay measure under CMAQ Traffic Congestion into one measure under CMAQ, the PHED measure. This new measure focuses on excessive delay experienced during peak hours in applicable urbanized areas. • Introducing two new measures in response to extensive public comments: ○ Under NHPP System Performance—a new measure to assess system performance, specifically the percent change in CO 2 emissions from the reference year 2017, generated by on-road mobile sources on the NHS (the GHG measure). All State DOTs and MPOs that have NHS mileage in their State geographic boundaries and metropolitan planning areas, respectively, will be required to establish targets and report on progress. The FHWA will assess every 2 years to determine if a State DOT has made significant progress toward achieving their targets. ○ Under CMAQ Traffic Congestion—a new measure to assess modal share, specifically the Percent of Non-SOV Travel measure. State DOTs and MPOs are provided the opportunity to use localized surveys or measurements to report on this measure and will be encouraged to report to FHWA any data not currently available in national sources ( e.g., bike counts). • Changing the weighting of the travel time measures from system miles to person-miles traveled, focusing on bus, auto, and truck occupancy levels, and providing opportunities for State DOTs and MPOs to capture more specific local occupancy levels for particular corridors or areas. • These changes result in one fewer measure than proposed in the NPRM, for a total of 7 measures. Now, four of these are derived from vehicle travel times, three of which reflect all people traveling on the system, a change requested by many commenters. • Phasing in expanded applicability of the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measures beginning with urbanized areas with a population over 1 million in the first performance period and expanding to urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 beginning in the second performance period. These measures are to carry out the CMAQ program; therefore, the areas will be limited to urbanized areas that contain any part of nonattainment or maintenance areas for one or more pollutants listed in 23 U.S.C. 149 (ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter). • Taking steps to simplify and otherwise respond to suggestions regarding the data processing and calculation of the measures. Table 2—Summary of Final Measures in the Third Performance Measure Final Rule Measure groups (program area) Performance measures Measure/target applicability Metric data source & collection frequency Metric NHPP Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Interstate That Are Reliable Mainline of the Interstate System within a State or each metropolitan planning area All traffic/vehicles data in NPMRDS or Equivalent—every 15-minutes Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR). Percent of Person-Miles Traveled on the Non-Interstate NHS That Are Reliable. Mainline of the non-Interstate NHS within a State or each metropolitan planning area All traffic/vehicles data in NPMRDS or Equivalent—every 15-minutes Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR). Percent Change in CO 2 Emissions on the NHS Compared to the Calendar Year 2017 Level. NHS within a State or each metropolitan planning area Annual state total fuel sales data from Highway Statistics and VMT estimates on NHS and all public roads from HPMS Annual Total Tailpipe CO 2 Emissions on the NHS. Freight movement on the Interstate System measure (NHFP) Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index Mainline of the Interstate System within a State or each metropolitan planning area Truck data in NPMRDS or equivalent data set—every 15—minutes TTTR Index. CMAQ Annual Hours of Peak-Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita Mainline of NHS in urbanized areas with a population over 1M/200k in nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program All traffic/vehicles data in NPMRDS or equivalent data set—every 15 minutes (bus, car and truck volumes in HPMS; occupancy factors published by FHWA Total Peak-Hour Excessive Delay person-hours. Percent of N SOV Travel. Urbanized areas with a population over 1M/200k in nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program ACS, local survey, or local counts (includes bike/pedestrian counts) n/a. Total Emission Reductions. All nonattainment and maintenance areas for CMAQ criteria pollutants CMAQ Public Access System n/a. The FHWA updated these and other elements in this final rule based on the review and analysis of comments received. For additional detail on all the changes FHWA made in the final rule, please refer to Sections V and VI of this document. The FHWA has also prepared a comment response document available on the docket for this rulemaking. The following summarizes the regulatory impact analysis for the final rule. Section references below refer to sections of the regulatory text for title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR). This final rule adds 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 includes definitions and clarifies terminology associated with target establishment, reporting, and making significant progress. Section 490.105 describes the process State DOTs and MPOs must use to establish targets. State DOTs will establish their first statewide targets 1 year after the effective date of this rule. The MPOs have up to 180 days after State DOTs establish their targets to establish their own targets. The FHWA has placed a timeline on the docket that illustrates how this transition could be implemented. C. Costs and Benefits The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new requirements that represent a change to current practices of USDOT, State DOTs, and MPOs. 4 The FHWA derived the costs of the new requirements by assessing the additional capital needed and the expected increase in the level of labor effort for FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs to standardize and update data collection and reporting systems, and establish and report targets. 4 See Tables 3 and 4 in Section VII, Rulemaking Analysis and Notices. The FHWA sought opinions from subject matter experts (SMEs) on NHS performance, freight movement, and traffic congestion and emissions to estimate impacts of the final rule. Cost estimates were developed based on information received from SMEs. 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. 5 Where necessary, capital costs were also included. Many of these measures rely on the use and availability of NPMRDS data provided by FHWA for use by State DOTs and MPOs. Because there is uncertainty regarding the ongoing funding of NPMRDS by FHWA, FHWA estimated the cost of the final rule under two scenarios. First, assuming that FHWA provides State DOTs and MPOs with the required data from NPMRDS, the 10-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $144.0 million (Scenario 1). Alternatively, under “worst case” conditions where State DOTs will be required to independently acquire the necessary data, the 10-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $205.5 million (Scenario 2). The total 10-year undiscounted cost is approximately 43 percent higher under Scenario 2 than under Scenario 1. 5 Bureau of Labor Statistics Employee Cost Index, 2014. The final rule's 10-year undiscounted cost ($144.0 million in Scenario 1 and $205.5 million in Scenario 2, both in 2014 dollars) decreased relative to the proposed rule ($165.3 million in Scenario 1 and $224.5 million in Scenario 2, both in 2014 dollars). The FHWA made several changes that affected the cost estimate. These changes include updating costs to 2014 dollars from 2012 dollars and labor costs to reflect current Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. In addition, FHWA revised the final rule Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), found in the docket of this final rulemaking, to reflect: (1) The elimination of three of the proposed performance measures (removing the proposed NHFP measure for percent of the Interstate congested and merging two proposed peak-hour travel time measures under NHPP with the proposed excessive delay measure under CMAQ Traffic Congestion into one measure under CMAQ); (2) the elimination of one of the proposed performance metrics (for the Total Emissions Reductions measure); (3) the elimination of costs for the Initial Performance Report, which State DOTs have already submitted to FHWA; (4) the addition of two new performance measures (Percent of Non-SOV Travel measure and the GHG measure; and (5) the adjustment of level of effort and number of affected entities consistent with the new requirements under the final rule and updated population estimates. The FHWA expects that the rule will result in significant benefits, although they are not easily quantifiable. Specifically, the rule will allow for more informed decisionmaking at a Federal, State, and regional level for NHS performance-, freight movement-, or congestion and emissions-related projects, programs, and policy choices. The rule will also yield greater accountability because MAP-21 mandated reporting increases visibility and transparency. The data reported to FHWA by State DOTs will be available to the public and will be used to communicate a national performance story. The FHWA performed break-even analyses as the primary approach to quantify benefits. The FHWA identified four variables (or outcomes) for which to estimate break-even thresholds: (1) Number of passenger travel hours, (2) tons of transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions, (3) number of truck travel hours, and (4) kilograms of on-road mobile source emissions, comprising volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. The FHWA selected these variables because it is reasonable to assume that the performance measures will influence each of these variables relative to current baseline levels. FHWA assumes that there will be no overall change in the total amount of expenditure on highway projects by State DOTs and MPOs. Instead, FHWA assumes that States and MPOs will choose a different mix of projects or delay some projects, relative to what they would have done without the rule, in order to fund projects that help to meet performance goals. There will be some costs to delaying or foregoing some projects, but their will be benefits from projects that are prioritized to meet performance goals. To perform a breakeven analysis, FHWA considered both these benefits and costs and considered how large of a net gain in benefits would be needed to offset the costs of the rule. After identifying these variables, FHWA combined the final rule costs associated with the performance measures that will influence each variable. The FHWA expects that implementation of four of the rule's performance measures (the Travel Time Reliability measures, the PHED measure and the Percent of Non-SOV Travel measure) will influence passenger travel hours. The FHWA expects that implementation of the GHG measure will influence tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The FHWA expects that implementation of the Freight Reliability measure will influence number of truck travel hours. The FHWA expects that implementation of the performance measure for Total Emissions Reduction will influence kilograms of on-road mobile source emissions. Two variables (number of passenger travel hours and number of truck travel hours) are associated with performance measures whose costs differ under two scenarios feasible under the final rule; in Scenario 1, FHWA provides travel time data to State DOTs, and in Scenario 2, State DOTs acquire the necessary data independently. To account for this, FHWA performed the break-even analyses twice for these two variables ( i.e., once using Scenario 1 costs, and a second time using Scenario 2 costs). The costs associated with the remaining two variables (tons of carbon dioxide emissions and kilograms of on-road mobile source emissions) do not change under Scenarios 1 and 2; therefore, only one break-even threshold is calculated for each analysis. In all, FHWA presents six break-even thresholds: (1) Number of passenger travel hours under Scenario 1, (2) number of passenger travel hours under Scenario 2, (3) tons of carbon dioxide emissions, (4) number of truck travel hours under Scenario 1, (5) number of truck travel hours under Scenario 2, and (6) kilograms of on-road mobile source emissions. The results show that the rule must result in the reduction of approximately 3.7 million hours of passenger car travel under Scenario 1 and 5.6 million hours under Scenario 2, 312,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, 980,000 hours of freight travel under Scenario 1 and 1.6 million hours under Scenario 2, and 29 million kilograms of total on-road mobile source emissions over 10 years: To generate enough benefits to outweigh the cost of the rule. The FHWA believes that the benefits of this rule will surpass this threshold. Therefore, the benefits of the rule are anticipated to outweigh the costs. Relative to the proposed rule, the total number of hours of passenger travel time needed to be saved over the period of analysis increased for the break-even analysis covering the Travel Time Reliability measures and the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measures. The undiscounted cost of these performance measures in the final rule decreased from $88.4 million over 11 years (in 2012 dollars) in the proposed rule to $86.1 million over 10 years (in 2014 dollars) in the final rule under Scenario 1. Under Scenario 2, costs increased from $123.9 million over 11 years (in 2012 dollars) in the proposed rule to $132.2 million over 10 years (in 2014 dollars) in the final rule. The Percent of Non-SOV Travel measure was added to the final rule, but the additional costs of this requirement were outweighed by the cost reductions associated with the removal of the peak-hour travel time reliability performance measures. For the final rule, FHWA added a break-even threshold for the GHG measure because it was not a part of the proposed rule. The undiscounted cost for Scenario 2 increased because a greater share of the travel time dataset costs under § 490.103 in Scenario 2 was attributable to these Travel Time Reliability measures and the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measures. Specifically, the share of data requirements costs is driven by the proportion of performance measures in each break-even analysis, which for these performance measures increased from 60 percent in the proposed rule to 75 percent in the final rule. In addition, moving from an 11-year period of analysis to a 10-year period of analysis affected the break-even point. The average annual number of hours of travel that need to be reduced increased from approximately 350,000 in the proposed rule under Scenario 1 to 370,000 in the final rule, and from approximately 500,000 in the proposed rule under Scenario 2 to 560,000 in the final rule. The threshold for the NHFP performance measure break-even analysis significantly decreased in the final rule. This change was largely due to the elimination of the proposed Average Truck Speed performance measure. The undiscounted cost of freight performance provisions in the final rule is $25.8 million (in 2014 dollars) under Scenario 1 and $41.1 million (in 2014 dollars) under Scenario 2, compared to $46.9 million (in 2012 dollars) under Scenario 1 and $70.6 million (in 2012 dollars) under Scenario 2 in the proposed rule. Average annual number of hours of travel that need to be reduced decreased from 168,044 in the proposed rule to 98,224 in the final rule under Scenario 1, and from 252,896 hours in the proposed rule to 156,874 hours in the final rule under Scenario 2. Regarding the break-even analysis for Total Emissions Reduction, units were changed from tons to kilograms based on revised rule language. The undiscounted costs of total emissions reduction decreased from $30.0 million (in 2012 dollars) in the proposed rule to $18.2 million (in 2014 dollars) in the final rule. The average annual amount of total emissions to be reduced decreased from 4,417 short tons (approximately 4 million kilograms) in the proposed rule to 2.9 million kilograms in the final rule. Table 2 displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost and benefits calculated for this rule. Table 3—OMB A-4 Accounting Statement Category Estimates Primary Low High Units Year dollar Discount rate (%) Period covered Source/ citation Benefits Annualized Monetized ($ millions/year) None None None None None None NA NA 7 3 NA NA Not Quantified. Annualized Quantified None None None None None None NA NA 7 3 NA NA Not Quantified. Qualitative More informed decision-making on congestion-, freight-, and air quality-related project, program, and policy choices; greater accountability due to mandated reporting, increasing visibility and transparency; enhanced focus of the Federal-aid highway program on achieving balanced performance outcomes. Final Rule RIA. Costs Annualized Monetized ($/year) Scenario 1: $15,145,514; Scenario 2: $21,801,333 2014 7 10 Years Final Rule RIA. Scenario 1: $14,717,670; Scenario 2: $21,082,985 2014 3 10 Years Annualized Quantified None None None None None None 2014 2014 7 3 10 Years 10 Years Final Rule RIA. Qualitative Transfers None From/To From: To: Effects State, Local, and/or Tribal Government Scenario 1: $14,768,979 Scenario 2: $21,795,847 Scenario 1: $14,347,569 Scenario 2: $21,077,992 2014 2014 7 3 10 Years 10 Years Final Rule RIA. Small Business Not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities NA NA NA Final Rule RIA. II. Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym or abbreviation Term AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic. AADTT Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic. AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ACS American Community Survey. CAA Clean Air Act. CFR Code of Federal Regulations. CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. CO Carbon monoxide. CO 2 Carbon dioxide. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation. EO Executive Order. EIA Energy Information Agency, U.S. Department of Energy. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. FHWA Federal Highway Administration. FPM Freight Performance Measurement. FR Federal Register. GHG Greenhouse gas. HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System. HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program. HSP Highway Safety Plan. IFR Interim Final Rule. LOTTR Level of Travel Time Reliability. MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. MPH Miles per hour. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations. NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards. NCHRP National Cooperation Highway Research Program. NHFP National Highway Freight Program. NHPP National Highway Performance Program. NHS National Highway System. NHTS National Household Travel Survey. NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NO X Nitrogen oxide. NPMRDS National Performance Management Research Data Set. NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking. O 3 Ozone. OMB Office of Management and Budget. PM Particulate matter. PHED Peak Hour Excessive Delay. PHTTR Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio. PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. PSL Posted Speed Limit. RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis. RIN Regulatory Identification Number. SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan. SME Subject matter experts. SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle. State DOTs State departments of transportation. TMA Transportation Management Areas. TMC Traffic Message Channel. TTI Texas Transportation Institute. TTTR Truck Travel Time Reliability. U.S.C. United States Code. VMT Vehicle miles traveled. VOC Volatile organic compound. III. Background The DOT implemented MAP-21's performance requirements through several rulemakings. 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 in each rulemaking. On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (81 FR 13882) covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid highway performance measures rulemaking that included the following: (1) The definitions that are applicable to the new 23 CFR part 490; (2) the process to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish their safety-related performance targets that reflect the safety measures; (3) a methodology to be used to assess State DOTs' compliance with the target achievement provision specified under 23 U.S.C. 148(i); and (4) the process State DOTs must follow to report on progress toward meeting or making significant progress toward safety-related performance targets. The final rule also included a discussion of the collective rulemaking actions FHWA intends to take to implement MAP-21 and FAST Act performance related provisions. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FHWA published a second performance measures final rule which includes the following: (1) Final national performance management measures for the condition of NHS pavements and bridges; (2) the process to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish their pavement and bridge condition related performance targets that reflect the final measures; (3) the process State DOTs must follow to report on progress toward meeting or making significant progress toward meeting pavement and bridge condition related performance targets; (4) a methodology to be used to assess State DOTs' compliance with the target achievement provision specified under 23 U.S.C. 148(i); and (5) the minimum levels for the condition of pavement on the Interstate System and bridges carrying the NHS, which includes on- and off-ramps connected to the NHS. The FHWA published the third national performance management measures NPRM on April 22, 2016, 81 FR 23806. In this NPRM, FHWA proposed national measures for the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) that were not discussed under the first and second measure rules. The third rulemaking effort proposed performance measures to assess: (1) The performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP; (2) freight movement on the Interstate System; and (3) traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ program. In addition, the NPRM proposed State DOT and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid highway program and performance progress reporting requirements and timing. When FHWA began implementation of MAP-21, the three related Federal-aid highway performance measure rules were proposed to be published at the same time to allow for a single, common effective date for all three rules. The process to develop and implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures required in MAP-21, however, has been lengthy. In light of this, each of the three Federal-aid highway performance measures rules will have individual effective dates. The FHWA expects that even though each rule sets its respective effective date, the compliance schedule for all the rules will be aligned through a common performance period and reporting requirements. A timeline for Biennial Performance Reports is shown in Figure 1 in § 490.105(e)(1). Although FHWA believes that individual implementation dates will help State DOTs and MPOs transition to performance based planning, FHWA will provide guidance to State DOTs and MPOs on how to carry out the new performance requirements to lessen any potential burden of staggered effective dates. The FHWA also commits to assist State DOTs and MPOs as they take steps to manage and improve the performance of the highway system by implementing the new rules. As a Federal agency, FHWA is in a unique position to review and share strategies that can improve performance. The FHWA will continue to provide technical assistance, technical tools, and guidance to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them in making performance-based decisions. The FHWA intends to engage at a local and national level to provide resources and assistance to identify opportunities to improve performance and to assist State DOT and MPO compliance with the performance-related regulations. The FHWA technical assistance activities will include conducting national research studies, improving analytical modeling tools, identifying and promoting best practices, training classes and workshops, preparing guidance materials, and developing data quality assurance tools. IV. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking This NPRM was published on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23806). The NPRM proposed a set of national measures for State DOTs to use to assess the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP; to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ Program. After consulting with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders and a review of nationally recognized reports, FHWA proposed eight national performance measures in these areas. To support the new measures, the NPRM proposed to establish standardized data requirements that prescribed State DOTs' travel time and emissions data practices. State DOTs and MPOs would use the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) to calculate the travel time and speed-related metrics, although the NPRM offered flexibility to State DOTs and MPOs to use alternative travel time datasets with FHWA's approval. For Total Emission Reduction measure, the NPRM required State DOTs and affected MPOs to use data included in the existing CMAQ Public Access System. The NPRM also proposed to establish the processes for State DOTs and MPOs to establish and report progress toward achieving targets, and the process for FHWA to determine whether State DOTs have made significant progress in achieving targets. The FHWA selected the measures, data requirements, and related processes proposed in the NPRM after preliminarily determining that they represented the best choices for achieving consistency among State DOTs and MPOs in compiling accurate system performance, freight movement, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions performance information, following processes for target setting, and reviewing progress toward targets. The FHWA expected the proposed measures to enhance accountability and support a strong national focus on maintaining and improving the condition and performance of the Nation's highways, while minimizing additional burden on State DOTs and MPOs and maintaining reasonable flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs as they manage risk, differing priorities, and fiscal constraints. Lastly, FHWA anticipated that the proposed measures could be implemented in the timeframe required under MAP-21, without imposing excessive burden on State DOTs. System Performance Measures The four system performance measures proposed in the NPRM were: (1) Percent of the Interstate System Providing for Reliable Travel; (2) Percent of the Interstate System Where Peak Hour Travel Times Meet Expectations; (3) Percent of the Non-Interstate NHS Providing for Reliable Travel; and (4) Percent of the Non-Interstate NHS Where Peak Hour Travel Times Meet Expectations. System Performance Data Requirements and Metrics In the NPRM, FHWA proposed calculating the performance measures using two performance metrics: The LOTTR metric and the Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio (PHTTR) metric. Under the proposal, State DOTs and MPOs would be required to calculate these metrics for all applicable roadway segments for the applicable time periods and report them to FHWA annually. The NPRM also proposed that State DOTs coordinate with MPOs in order to establish and submit reporting segments to be used as the basis for calculating and reporting metrics to the FHWA and for State DOTs and MPOs to calculate the measures to assess Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS performance. Calculation of System Performance Measures The FHWA designed the proposed system performance measures to reflect a percentage of the system, by length, operating at a specified level of performance. In the NPRM, FHWA proposed a threshold level that represented reliable travel to highway users of LOTTR of 1.50. This LOTTR level represented the difference between the longer travel times (80th percentile) observed on a roadway segment and those that are normal travel times (50th percentile). For PHTTR, a threshold level of 1.50 represented peak hour travel times that meet expectations of State DOTs, MPOs, and local operating agencies. This PHTTR level represents a condition where observed (or estimated) travel times in large urbanized areas are no more than 50 percent higher than what would be desired for the roadway, as identified by the State DOT and MPO. Freight Movement on the Interstate System Measures The two freight movement measures proposed in the NPRM were: (1) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage Providing for Reliable Truck Travel Time and (2) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage Uncongested. Freight Movement on the Interstate System Data Requirements and Metrics The FHWA proposed determining performance measures for freight movement using two metrics: TTTR and the Average Truck Speed metrics. For the TTTR metric, FHWA proposed having the State DOTs use the same basic method as discussed for the LOTTR metric to calculate truck travel time reliability. State DOTs also would calculate the Average Truck Speed metric for each reporting segment, which would be derived from truck travel speeds contained in the NPMRDS travel time data set. Calculation of Freight Movement on the Interstate System Measures The FHWA designed the proposed freight movement performance measures to reflect a percentage of the system, by length, operating at a specified level of performance. The NPRM proposed establishing the truck travel time reliability threshold at 1.50 to represent the level at which truck travel times become unreliable. This level represents a condition where travel time could be no more than 50 percent longer than what would be expected during normal travel time conditions. For average truck speed, the NPRM proposed that any travel speeds occurring below 50 mph would be representative of congested conditions for freight flow. Traffic Congestion Measure The proposed traffic congestion measure was Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita. Traffic Congestion Data Requirements and Metric The NPRM proposed one metric for traffic congestion: Total Excessive Delay (as measured in vehicle-hours) for each applicable reporting segment on the NHS. To develop the metric, the NPRM proposed that State DOTs with large urbanized areas that contain nonattainment or maintenance areas for any of the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program use a travel time data set like NPMRDS (as is required for the system performance and freight movement performance measures). The NPRM proposed two threshold travel speeds to indicate when operating conditions have deteriorated to the point that excessive travel time delays would occur. Any measured travel speeds below the threshold would represent the operating condition level that would result in excessive delays. These thresholds were 35 mph for Interstates, freeways, or expressways and15 mph for all other NHS roadways. Using these thresholds and travel time segment lengths, a State DOT would determine the Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time for each travel time segment to represent the time that it could take for a vehicle to traverse the reporting segment before excessive delay would occur. The excessive delay would be determined by comparing the recorded average travel time to the Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time for the corresponding segment. Calculation of Traffic Congestion Measure The proposed traffic congestion performance measure would be calculated by summing the total excessive delay of all reporting segments in the applicable area and then dividing this total by the population for the applicable area. On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measures The proposed on-road mobile source emissions measure was Total Tons of Emissions Reduced from CMAQ Projects for Applicable Criteria Pollutants and Precursors. On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Data Requirements and Metric Under the NPRM, State DOTs and MPOs would calculate the annual emission reductions for projects reported to the CMAQ Public Access System in a Federal fiscal year. The metric would be calculated for each CMAQ-funded project and for each applicable criteria pollutant and precursor. The proposed method would convert the emissions reductions reported in the CMAQ Public Access System from units of kg per day to short tons per year. The emissions reductions would be summed for all projects within the applicable reporting area, by criteria pollutant or precursor, for a Federal fiscal year. Calculation of On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Measure Under the NPRM, State DOTs and MPOs would calculate on-road mobile source emissions reductions by summing the annual tons of emissions reduced by CMAQ projects by criteria pollutant, using the 2- and 4-years of available data from the Public Access System. Potential GHG Performance Measure The NPRM also sought comment on whether and how to establish a CO 2 emissions measure in the final rule. The NPRM posed questions to the public on how GHG emissions could be estimated and used to inform planning and programming decisions to reduce long term emissions. The NPRM indicated that a potential GHG emissions performance measure would be best measured as the total annual tons of CO 2 from all on-road mobile sources. The FHWA asked for comment on the potential establishment and effectiveness of a GHG measure, and on various considerations in the design of a measure. Performance Targets The NPRM described a process to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish quantifiable statewide performance targets to be achieved over a 4-year performance period, with the first performance period starting in 2018. In the NPRM, FHWA proposed that a State DOT or MPO could consider a number of factors ( e.g., funding availability and local transportation priorities) that could impact the targets they ultimately establish. The FHWA discussed the statutory requirement that State DOTs establish 2- and 4-year targets for the eight national performance measures to assess performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP, freight movement on the Interstate system, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions within 1 year after the effective date of the rule. The MPOs would establish targets by either supporting the State DOT's statewide target, or defining a target unique to the metropolitan planning area each time the State DOT establishes a target. In accordance with MAP-21, the NPRM proposed providing MPOs with an additional 180-day period to set targets following the date on which the State DOT established their targets. State DOT and MPO Reporting The NPRM proposed that State DOTs submit biennial reports to FHWA on the condition and performance of the NHS. The FHWA proposed that State DOTs submit their targets in a baseline report at the beginning of each performance period and report progress in achieving targets 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 on a reporting process as part of their Metropolitan Planning Agreements. Determination of Significant Progress The NPRM proposed the method for FHWA to determine if State DOTs achieved significant progress toward their target based on an analysis of estimated condition/performance and measured condition/performance of each of the targets. If applicable, State DOTs could have the opportunity to discuss why targets were not achieved or significant progress was not made. If a State DOT failed to achieve significant progress, then the State DOT would be required to document in their next biennial performance report, and encouraged to document sooner, the actions they would undertake to achieve their targets. V. Response to Comments This final rule is based on FHWA's review and analysis of comments received. The FHWA received 8889 letters to the docket, including letters from 43 State DOTs and local government agencies, more than 100 associations and advocacy groups, over 7800 individuals and consultants, and various other government agencies as well as 3 letters cosigned by 19 U.S. Senators. Of all the letters to the docket, 95 percent specifically addressed a request for a multimodal performance measures and greenhouse gas performance measure or both. Given the large number of comments received, FHWA has decided to organize the response to comments in the following manner. This section of the preamble provides a response to the most significant issues raised in the comments received, organized by summarizing and responding to comments that raise significant issues applicable to the NPRM and then those that raise issues applicable to specific subparts of the rule. Responses to all other comments ( i.e., comments deemed less significant) are located in a separate comment/response document posted in the docket for this rulemaking. A. Significant Issues Raised in Comments The following summarizes the most significant issues raised in the comments to the NPRM and describes how FHWA has addressed these issues. More specific detail regarding these issues is provided in the sections that follow (Sections V-B through V-F). 1. Summary of Significant Issues Raised in the Comments The NPRM Was Too Focused on Vehicle Travel Time —Many commenters expressed concern that 7 of the 8 proposed measures were based on vehicle travel time data. The Rule Needs to Account for All People —The largest volume of comments received expressed concern that the proposed measures did not appear to reflect the travel experience of all people using the system and, in particular, those that use public transportation, walk, or bike. The Rule Needs to Account for Multimodal Travel —Many commenters perceived that the proposed measures would encourage highway expansion and would not recognize strategies that provide for greater transportation choices. The Proposed Rule Was Overly Complex —Many State DOTs and MPOs raised concern with the complexity of the design of the measure calculations and asked for the method to be simplified. The Coordination Requirements in the NPRM Would be Difficult to Implement —Many State DOTs and MPOs expressed concern with the level of coordination required to agree on data sources, travel time expectations, and targets for urbanized areas. The Rule Should or Should Not Include a Greenhouse Gas Measure —Comments were received both supporting and objecting to the inclusion of a GHG emissions measure in the final rule. Supporting comments came from thousands of individual citizens, several State DOTs, and hundreds of other organizations, including local governments, non-profits, and businesses. Comments against a GHG measure came from several State DOTs and 27 industry associations. The NPRM's Proposed Speed Thresholds Were Problematic —Commenters expressed concerns with the use of an absolute speed threshold to determine congested conditions and the use of a single threshold to define reliable conditions. 2. Summary of Major Changes Made in Response to These Comments The FHWA made a number of changes in the final rule in response to the comments received. These changes include the following: The FHWA revised the suite of measures to simplify the rule and reduce the burden of compliance. The final rule contains 7 measures. Four of these are derived from vehicle travel times, compared to 7 in the NPRM, 3 of which reflect all people traveling on the system. More specifically, the final rule does not include one of the proposed measures that focused on freight congestion and merges three additional proposed measures (two under NHPP System Performance and one under CMAQ Traffic Congestion) into one new measure, focused on excessive delay experienced during peak hours that will be under CMAQ Traffic Congestion. In addition, the final rule includes two new measures: Under NHPP System Performance —The rule includes a new GHG measure to assess system performance, specifically the percent change in CO 2 emissions from 2017, generated by on-road mobile sources on the NHS. State DOTs will be required to estimate CO 2 emissions based on annual fuel sales, EIA published emission conversion factors, and the proportion of statewide VMT that occurs on the NHS. MPOs will be provided options as to how they calculate CO 2 emissions. All State DOTs, and MPOs that have NHS mileage in their metropolitan planning area, will be required to establish targets and report on progress. State DOTs will report annual CO 2 emissions every 2 years to FHWA in their Biennial Performance Report. The FHWA will assess every 2 years if the State DOT has made significant progress towards the achievement of their target. Under CMAQ Traffic Congestion —The rule includes a new measure to assess modal share percentage, specifically Percent of Non-SOV, Travel, which includes travel avoided by telecommuting. A minimum option for doing so will be use of the American Community Survey “Journey to Work” data. States and MPOs will be provided the opportunity to use localized surveys or measurements to report on this measure and will be encouraged to report any data not available in national sources today to FHWA ( e.g., bike counts). The final rule simplifies the process. The FHWA simplifies the required data processing and calculation of the metrics. In general these steps include: Use of 15 minute travel time intervals instead of 5 minute intervals; Consistent time periods for all travel time-derived measures; Recognition of commercial data sets that could be pre-approved by FHWA; Removal of the requirement to “fill” missing data with travel times at posted speed limits; and Use of all vehicle travel times, regardless of speed, to replace missing truck travel times. In addition, FHWA is committed to working with State DOTs and MPOs to establish a pooled fund effort to acquire services and tools that will help with the processing and analysis of data. The final rule modifies measures to address comments regarding the overreliance on vehicle travel times and the need to include multimodal travel. The final rule includes three measures that reflect the number of people traveling on the system, including two measures that have been modified so they are based on person-travel instead of vehicle travel, and a new multi-modal percent of non-SOV travel measure mentioned above. Specifically, the final rule changes the weighting of the Travel Time Reliability measures from system miles to person-miles traveled using overall occupancy factors from national surveys. It also changes the expression of the PHED measure to account for all travelers using the NHS based on volumes and occupancy factors for cars, buses, and trucks. The FHWA will provide occupancy factors based on national surveys and NTD data. State DOTs and MPOs may use more accurate local data if such data are available. The final rule creates the new Percent of non-SOV measure for CMAQ traffic congestion. Furthermore, FHWA will revisit this issue and consider approaches to more effectively consider multimodal performance in the measures after the completion of ongoing research regarding multimodal system performance measures in fall, 2018. The final rule addresses concerns with the use of absolute thresholds. The rule changes the proposed excessive delay threshold from 15/35 mph to 20 mph or 60 percent of the posted speed limit, whichever is greater. The rule encourages State DOTs to report the full extent of posted speed limits to the HPMS and requires that these be reported for applicable areas under the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measures. In addition, the rule changes the form of the Freight Reliability measure from one based on the percent of the system providing for reliable travel to an overall average truck reliability index for the Interstate. This change removes the 1.50 threshold in the definition of “reliable travel” for trucks and recognizes incremental improvements that could be made to improve reliability. The final rule addresses comments regarding applicability of the rule. Specifically, the rule revises the applicability of the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measures to begin with urbanized areas (in nonattainment or maintenance) with populations over 1 million in the first performance period (4 years begin in 2018) and then expands the applicability in the second reporting period (beginning in 2022) to urbanized areas (in nonattainment or maintenance) with a population over 200,000. Additionally, the final rule moves the date of measure applicability determination up 1 year earlier. The NPRM proposed that FHWA would determine measure applicability based on the most recent available data on October 1of the first year in the performance period. The final rule changes this to be October 1of the year before the beginning of a performance period. Finally, the final rule changes the use of the most recent decennial census population to determine measure applicability and to normalize the PHED measure to the most recent annual population estimate published by the U.S. Census. The final rule relaxes some CMAQ Emission Requirements. The rule revises the definition of “Maintenance Area” to exclude any areas that have completed their 20 year maintenance plan. It also removes the requirement to develop a “metric” (by rolling the metric step into the measure calculation) to simplify the process. In addition, under the final rule, States and MPOs can request their areas to be excluded from the CMAQ performance requirements at the midpoint of the performance period if they reach attainment status (or achieve their 20 year maintenance plan). B. Subpart A—General Information 1. Implementation Date Alignment and Coordination The Georgia DOT commented that implementation dates for NPRMs (Asset Management, Pavement and Bridge Performance Measures, etc.) related to the new Statewide and Metro Planning Rule should be aligned to ensure accuracy and consistency. The Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council recommended aligning the various reporting due dates. While each rulemaking may not be finalized at the same time, the commenter requested that FHWA set a future point in time when all reporting of measures will align. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) also recommended aligning the schedule for safety, pavement, bridge, travel time reliability, peak hour travel time, freight movement, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions target setting and reporting into one consolidated rotation. The New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NYSAMPO), Georgia Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) urged FHWA to use a single effective date for all three performance management rules. Although FHWA anticipated establishing one common effective date for the three performance management rules, the length of the rulemaking process made that approach impractical. Each rule has its own effective date. This approach allows FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs to begin implementing some of the performance management requirements before all the rules are issued. In this final rule, FHWA aligned the performance periods (described in § 490.105(e)(4)(i)) and State Biennial Performance Report due dates (described in § 490.107) with the pavement and bridge condition measures for the second performance management rule in effort to consolidate reporting requirements. Throughout the process for all related performance management rulemakings ( e.g., National Highway System Asset Management Plan, 6 National Performance Management Measures for Pavement and Bridge Condition rule), FHWA has worked to coordinate the implementation dates for all of the rules for consistency and time alignment. 6 Final rule on “Asset Management Plans and Periodic Evaluations of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events” (October 2016)— Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 205 RIN 2125-AF57, Docket No. FHWA-2013-0052: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-24/pdf/2016-25117.pdf. 2. Reporting and Implementation Dates The Michigan DOT, Macatawa Area Coordinating Council, and Ozarks Transportation Organization recommended designating the first performance period as a pilot period for the system performance measures. The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) recommended postponing target establishment requirements to the second performance period. The Orange County Transportation Authority, Oregon Metro Council and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, Texas DOT, and TRANSCOM urged that sufficient time needs to be provided in order to effectively and appropriately develop and deploy target setting and implementation processes. The New York City DOT recommended that FHWA should coordinate with MPOs and State DOTs to set a reasonable and achievable implementation timeline. The COMPASS requested postponing target setting until transportation agencies have had a chance to familiarize themselves with the NPMRDS data and to develop current and forecasted reliability and speed measures. The AASHTO and Iowa, Maryland, and New Jersey DOTs recommended that FHWA consider a phased approach which includes a 2-year testing period following the effective date of the final rule to allow State DOTs and MPOs to develop “non-binding targets” in order to more fully understand the use of the data and the implications of those targets. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority recommended that FHWA should coordinate with MPOs and State DOTs to set a reasonable and achievable implementation timeline. The DOTs of Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming and AASHTO suggested including “waiver provisions of part 490, in whole or part, with or without time limits or other conditions, and/or extend deadlines, for good cause shown” because they said that the new 23 CFR part 490 is a complex and multi-faceted rule so that there will be unanticipated or unusually difficult circumstances in its implementation. The New York State Association of MPOs noted that a separate NPRM on MPO Coordination and Planning Area Reform was issued jointly by FHWA and FTA on June 27 and said that the proposed rule addresses “MPO geography.” The New York State Association of MPOs recommended that consideration of the implementation of this rule be suspended until the MPO Coordination and Planning Area Reform rule becomes final. The FHWA appreciates the comments received regarding the implementation dates and reporting dates for this rule. However, MAP-21 establishes the target establishment dates and reporting dates for this rule. State DOT target establishment “not later than 1 year of the effective date of this rule” in § 490.105(e)(1) is based on a statutory requirement under 23 U.S.C. 150(d). The date for reporting progress toward targets of October 1, 2016, is also based on a statutory requirement under 23 U.S.C. 150(e), which requires State reporting “not later than 4 years after enactment of MAP-21 and biennially thereafter.” As indicated in the NPRM, FHWA believes the phase-in approach will allow sufficient time for State DOTs and MPOs to become more proficient in managing performance of non-Interstate roadways and congestion on the NHS in applicable urbanized areas as the coverage of the data becomes more complete in the NPMRDS. The FHWA retains in the final rule the phase-in requirement language in § 490.105(e)(7), (e)(8)(vi), and (f)(5)(vi) for the Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability measure in § 490.507(a)(2) and the PHED measure in § 490.707(a), respectively. This phase-in will only require State DOTs to establish 4-year targets for the first performance period for this rule (reported in the first State Biennial Performance Report) for non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability measure and the PHED measure. Under this final rule, at the midpoint of the first performance period, State DOTs will have the option to adjust the 4-year targets they established at the beginning of the performance period in their Mid-Performance Period Progress Report (due in October 2020). This option will allow State DOTs to consider more complete data in their decisions on the 4-year targets for non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability and the PHED measures in applicable urbanized areas. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning commented that the effective date of this regulation should be set 1 year after FHWA provides an NPMRDS data set with sample sizes for each epoch-TMC record. The commenter said that this timeline would allow time for agencies to determine which records have low sample sizes and collect probe data. The NPMRDS has been available since July 2013, and many State DOTs and MPOs have been using the NPMRDS for over 3 years. The final rule and schedule for baseline reports and target establishment clarify how much time there is to prepare the data. In general, State DOTs and MPOs will have approximately 18 months to process data before the first set of metric data is required to be submitted to FHWA. The FHWA has simplified several of the measures to reduce the calculation burden, thereby reducing the amount of time necessary for State DOTs or MPOs to prepare the data. The FHWA also acknowledges the comment regarding deferring implementation of this final rule until completion of the MPO Coordination and Planning Area Reform rulemaking. The FHWA plans to issue guidance on dealing with metropolitan planning area change during a performance period. The FHWA believes that the implementation timeline provided in this final rule provides sufficient lead time to accommodate any requirements that may arise out of a final MPO rule. So, the FHWA declines to defer the implementation of this rule. 3. Accessibility and Connectivity The FHWA received many comments 7 urging FHWA to establish an accessibility performance measure. The California Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG) said that Federal databases should be made available to States and MPOs to support the monitoring of accessibility metrics. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) said it currently measures accessibility by taking afternoon or PM peak period travel demand model results for the base and forecast years and identifying the percentage of commute or home-based work trips that are completed within 45 minutes. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) recommended “shorter multimodal journey-to-work travel time than average” and “number of jobs accessible within a given time budget” as accessibility measure. 7 American Association On Health and Disability and the Lakeshore Foundation, American Council of Exercise, American Public Transportation Association, BikeWalkLee, California Association of Councils of Government, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), City of San Antonio, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Mid-Ohio Planning Commission, Mountainland Association of Governments, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Transit Authority, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, NARC, National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity, National League of Cities, National Recreation and Park Association, New York Bicycling Coalition, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Oregon Metro Council and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, Parks & Trails New York, Regional Transportation Alliance, Southern California Association of Governments, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), Transportation for America (T4A), Trust for America's Health, Utah Transit Authority, as well as 1,114 citizen letter campaigns sponsored by National Complete Streets Coalition, 150 citizen letter campaigns sponsored by T4A, and 11 citizen letters. The FHWA recognizes that accessibility and connectivity are important aspects of successful transportation systems that serve all users. In addition to the comments described above, stakeholder comments on these issues during outreach before publication of the NPRM expressed a variety of views, including that the establishment of an accessibility measure might encourage greater consideration of non-auto travel modes like transit, carpooling, walking, and biking. The FHWA agrees that the time-based measures proposed in the NPRM, such as the traffic congestion excessive delay measure, may not capture modal options, modal usage, or better accessibility. As described above, the final rule establishes a modal share measure that will do much to address these concerns. While the final rule does not include a measure dedicated to directly assessing transportation connectivity or accessibility, the rule reflects a necessary balancing of performance management needs across a broad spectrum and implementation burdens on the State DOTs and MPOs. The FHWA is working on several fronts to address accessibility and connectivity issues outside of this rulemaking. The FHWA, in cooperation with FTA, is actively working with transportation operating agencies and planning organizations on efforts to understand and advance best practices in assessing and managing transportation network connectivity to improve public accessibility to essential services. Through the Department's Ladders of Opportunity initiatives, efforts are currently underway to evaluate how measures can be used to assess accessibility/connectivity. 8 These initiatives will test different approaches to measure performance in this area that will help DOT better understand if and how accessibility and connectivity performance can be measured effectively at a local, State, and national level. The FHWA will use the results of these efforts to determine if a measure to assess accessibility/connectivity can be integrated into the Federal-aid Highway Program's performance management requirements in the future. 8 https://www.transportation.gov/opportunity. 4. Definition of Mainline Highway Illinois DOT supports the definition of mainline highways to exclude ramps, shoulders, turn lanes, etc., but expressed concern that the NPMRDS does not exclude these parts of the transportation system. The commenter said that this will lead to extensive manual work to identify and remove these parts of the transportation system from the data it would have to use to comply with the proposed rule. Texas DOT commented that “mainline highway” includes the primary traveled portion of the roadway and excludes ramps, climbing lanes, shoulders and non-normally traveled pavement surfaces. The commenter said the definition would seem to include managed lanes or high occupancy toll lanes. According to Texas DOT, traffic on these lanes typically travels at a higher rate of speed, which may influence the travel time reliability and percent of the Interstate System mileage that is uncongested. Texas DOT inquired whether FHWA considered these lanes to be part of a “mainline highway.” Florida DOT suggested that TMC should have categories for general purpose lane, separated managed lane, separated collector/distributor, and ramp. The Washington State and New York State DOTs, NARC, and Portland Metro Region MPO commented that managed lanes may be omitted in system performance calculations. They stated that the proposed rule would likely mask benefits from HOV and HOT lanes, toll roads, transit, and other operational enhancements and could discourage investment in these best practices. The Washington State DOT and NARC requested that FHWA either seek a way to differentiate the data with the data provider or account for HOV, HOT, toll roads, and other managed lanes. The AASHTO commented that FHWA should allow State DOTs the flexibility to better address the significant role that managed lanes play in the operation of the transportation system, as many regions in the United States have implemented some aspect of management lanes. The AASHTO recommended that FHWA develop an approach in the final rule that allows, but does not require, State DOTs and MPOs to specifically address managed lanes on their roadway network either through an improved NPMRDS that distinguishes between general purpose and management lanes or through supplementary analysis that takes into account the benefits of the managed lanes. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Southwest Energy Efficiency Project commented that the proposed measure for congestion focuses exclusively on vehicle speed, ignoring the significant role that public transit, high occupancy/managed lanes, and active transportation have in reducing congestion and improving overall performance of the regional transportation system. The FHWA agrees that ramps should not be included in measure calculations or in the NPMRDS dataset as the travel time derived measures are only applicable to mainline roadways. The next procurement of the NPMRDS will have a requirement to report mainline NHS segments only. If any ramp segments appear in the NPMRDS, State DOTs and MPOs should notify FHWA so these ramp segments can be removed in future NPMRDS deliverables. The FHWA actively promotes managed lanes as a strategy for managing operations, which can include reducing congestion and increasing person throughput. However, at this time, it is difficult to delineate these lanes in both the segment and probe data. Lane-specific speed data are not available through the NPMRDS unless the managed lane is listed as a separate NHS facility ( i.e., different TMC code). In addition, not all probe data are able to accurately differentiate traffic speed by lane on a roadway. The FHWA does not believe it is possible, at this time, to uniformly separate managed lanes given the available data. If State DOTs have appropriate segment-specific data for managed lanes, State DOTs may certainly track these and include this information in any reports. State DOTs or MPOs may use alternative data sources that include separate segments for managed and conventional lanes provided these data meet the requirements for equivalent data in section 490.103. State DOTs and MPOs are welcome to provide information on managed lanes in performance reports. 5. Data Processing and Conflation of Datasets Alaska, Arkansas, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, and Washington DOTs, AMPO, Georgia Association of MPOs, and many others asked FHWA to process the NPMRDS and develop a tool to calculate metrics. Many commenters made the same argument that the burden on States and MPOs is too great if they are each to process the NPMRDS themselves, and that this would represent a greatly inefficient duplication of effort. The AMPO and others agreed that processing the database nationally also would help ensure consistency across the country and thus aid in comparisons nationally. These commenters said that this processing should include all imputation needed to make the data set ready for calculations. Several commenters suggested that FHWA develop a Web-based tool for State DOTs and MPOs to process data and calculate the required metrics. Caltrans further suggested that Federal funding be made available for training. However, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council suggested that States and MPOs should have the option, if they so choose, to do their own calculations of the required performance metrics and measures. Others, such as Virginia DOT and TRANSCOM, more generally requested technical assistance and support for States and MPOs in undertaking metric and measure calculation. Michigan DOT suggested a case study of what the process and outputs would look like. The Mayors Innovation Project would like to see commercially available tools to relate speed, modal network availability, and location to help assess not only speed but accessibility. Many comments noted the particular burden of handling the NPMRDS, processing and developing the metrics even if they did not call on FHWA to perform these tasks. Commenters expressed concern about not only the time and resources it would take but also if State DOT and MPO staff would even have the skills to perform these tasks at all. Many commenters were concerned that the NPRM required data from both Traffic Message Channel (TMC) networks ( e.g., NPMRDS) and linear referencing systems ( e.g., HPMS) and that these two datasets are not conflated. Commenters requested that either FHWA provide conflated datasets or a tool for States to use. The FHWA recognizes and appreciates the effort required to download, store, process, and analyze the data in the NPMRDS in order to calculate the metrics required in the rule (and this is taken into account in the RIA). Some organizations have expressed that they are ready and capable of providing technical services and online applications to process and analyze data. The FHWA believes that the most effective way to address the concerns regarding the challenges with conflating data sets (linking travel time data with other roadway information such as traffic volumes) is by having organizations that have the skills and resources to handle and process large data sets provide these services and tools to State DOTs, MPOs, and FHWA. The FHWA is committed to working with State DOTs and MPOs to set up a pooled fund approach to data processing, analysis, metric/measure calculation and reporting, and potentially additional analysis tools. The economies of scale of all interested parties working together should help alleviate burdens. In addition, the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies program offers grants that could be used to support the collective need to provide technologies that could be used by State DOTs and MPOs to better manage system performance. The FHWA is using authorized funds under the new Performance Management Data Support Program (FAST Act Sec. 6028) to fund the acquisition of travel time data and to develop enhancements to the HPMS to support the data requirements of this rule. The FHWA anticipates that the next NPMRDS contract will include HPMS referencing for each TMC segment. This will simplify the process to conflate the travel time data to roadway information contained within the HPMS. The FHWA is also committed to help State DOTs and MPOs understand how they can most effectively process and analyze the travel time data sets. Technical support is already included in the NPMRDS contract where quarterly webinars are provided and technical assistance is offered on request. The FHWA intends to build on these services to support State DOT and MPO needs for assistance. 6. Population Estimates The Portland Metropolitan Region MPO recommended regional population be taken from Census-based annual estimates already obtained by MPOs for regional planning purposes from their own staff, reputable academic institutions, or qualified consultancies. The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) recommended using the most recent population estimate for the urbanized area. This commenter added that a constant population, as proposed, means that the only changes being measured and reported are the changes in delay; therefore, increases in delay associated with an increased population would not factor into the measure. The T4A also said that America's urban areas are witnessing large population shifts that have the opportunity to be omitted from two 4-year reporting cycles because of the reliance on decennial U.S. Census population estimates. This commenter requested discussion in the final rule for how States and MPOs could use population estimates from 5-year ACS estimates for each year reporting cycle. The Oregon and Washington State DOTs stated that the proposed language, to keep the population numbers used in the delay measure constant for the duration of the performance period, would give an inaccurate picture of congestion in fast-growing cities as more people use the roadways. The Washington State DOT requested that the delay measure be derived by dividing the total annual excessive delay by an estimated commuter population. The FHWA agrees with the comments that suggested the use of annual population estimates to determine measure applicability and to calculate the PHED measure. The FHWA believes that the use of annual estimates will provide for a more accurate estimation of population at the time when applicability determinations are made and when annual measures are calculated. Therefore, the final rule uses the most recent annual population estimate published by the U.S. Census Bureau (in lieu of Decennial Census population estimates) to compute the PHED measure and to determine which State DOTs and MPOs will be implementing CMAQ traffic congestion measures (both PHED and non-SOV Travel). Please see discussion section for §§ 490.709(g) and 490.105(e)(8)(iii) and (f)(5)(iii) for more details. To maintain consistency throughout all CMAQ measures, the final rule also uses the most recent annual population estimate published by the U.S. Census Bureau to determine which MPOs are required to develop and submit MPO CMAQ Performance Plan (Section 490.107(c)(3)). 7. Replacement of Missing Travel Time Data Several commenters expressed concern about replacing travel time data missing from the NPMRDS with imputed data. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning stated that imputation should be avoided as it may lead to under- or over-reporting, depending on the level of congestion present, and suggested that if imputation is used, FHWA should apply consistent rules for the replacement of missing values for all measures. Ozarks Transportation Organization, Oregon Metro Council and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Puget Sound Regional Council argued that imputation, while perhaps unavoidable, would increase inaccuracy in data sets. Some commenters, including North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority and Florida DOT, expressed general support for replacing missing travel time data with imputed data. Nebraska Department of Roads argued that the proposed restriction on using imputed data is inconsistent with the current use of estimates in the NPMRDS and further recommended that FHWA permit the use of estimates in alternative data sets. The AASHTO suggested that imputed data be smoothed and include information on whether the data were imputed at multiple confidence intervals. The commenter also recommended that in the future FHWA should require the provider(s) of NPMRDS data to follow recognized, industry-accepted methods for imputing incomplete or missing data. The New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations argued that the use of imputed data should be conditional on vendors providing details about the data ( e.g., the methodology used to develop them). Many commenters expressed support for imputation based on sources other than speed limit data, arguing that the alternatives have tested well in the field and are more accurate, efficient, and sophisticated than speed limit data are, and recommended that FHWA allow States the flexibility to use such data from providers like HERE, INRIX, and TomTom. These commenters included DVRPC, New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, AASHTO, and the State DOTs of Texas, Washington State, Oregon, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. The AMPO suggested that where observed data are unavailable, travel time interpolated between adjoining segments should be used instead of speed limit data. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet recommended that, depending on the time of day for which data is required, imputation could involve either treating missing data as a maximum travel time or inserting historical data into the data set. The final rule provides State DOTs the flexibility to select and use an alternative data set to the NPMRDS provided the data are considered “equivalent” as defined in section 490.103(e). The FHWA has established these requirements to ensure, through FHWA approvals, that data from different data sources are nationally comparable. The FHWA recognizes the concern with the degree of missing data and outliers in the NPMRDS as it existed when the NPRM was published. The FHWA supports approaches to filling in missing data provided they are based on observed travel during the same timeframe and roadway location, which is typically referred to as path processing. The original contract for the NPMRDS only allowed point-based probes to be included in the dataset ( i.e., that determine travel time based on the detection of a vehicle at one point in location). This method often recorded vehicles waiting at signalized intersections or missed them entirely during the detection period (5 minutes). The FHWA is currently updating the NPMRDS to allow for the determination of individual travel times during specified time intervals based on tracking the movement of single vehicles passing through a series of segments. This approach will maintain FHWA's desire to use observed travel times without the challenges associated with single point detection. The FHWA is confident that travel time providers will be able to provide data sets that follow this approach. To maintain consistency at a national level and to maintain an acceptable level of bias from the actual travel times occurring on the roadway throughout the year, FHWA discourages the use of methods to predict travel times based on historical trends or reference speeds. Consequently, to address concerns regarding the prohibition of the use of imputed travel times, FHWA has revised the final rule in section 490.103(e)(5)(iii) to allow “observed” travel times that may be derived from travel times reported over a longer time period of measurement (path processing or equivalent). The final rule will not allow missing data to be filled with data that are imputed from historical data or predicted based on statistical analysis approaches. 8. Segment Lengths The AASHTO and Illinois DOT expressed concern that the NPMRDS TMC segments are not consistent lengths across months and years. To address this issue, AASHTO recommended that FHWA require the NPMRDS provider to maintain segment definitions existing at the start of the year throughout the year. Because under this scenario, new roads and interchanges would not show up in the NPMRDS until the year following their opening, AASHTO commented that this approach would allow some time for State DOTs to get familiar with how new facilities are being used by the traveling public before they need to set targets and report on their performance. The Illinois DOT commented that the changing TMC segments would result in having to maintain conflation across each month's data in order to be able to analyze the measures and complete the calculations. The commenter asserted that this would impact the measures for a segment over time as it would not be comparing similar segments across the 4-year reporting timeframe. The AASHTO, Illinois, Minnesota, and Georgia State DOTs, Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council, Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Ozarks Transportation Organization, and Denver Regional Council of Governments recommended that FHWA allow State DOTs and MPOs flexibility to establish reporting segments that best reflect the needs of an individual State, which may be longer than the proposed limit of 1/2 mile for urban areas and 10 miles for non-urban areas. For example, AASHTO and Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council said that the segments could be based on logical termini, such as intersecting NHS facilities or the start or end of an urbanized area. The AASHTO and Connecticut DOT asserted that the proposed maximum length of reporting segments (1/2 mile in urbanized areas, 10 miles in non-urbanized areas) for a reliability measure are not consistent with prevailing practices in calculating travel time reliability measures ( e.g., SHRP 2 Reliability Program). Specifically, New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations proposed that FHWA permit urban travel time segments up to 5 miles in length. Requesting to see FHWA's research behind the proposed reporting segment length caps, Oregon and Washington State DOTs recommended that FHWA revise proposed § 490.103(f) so as not to be misinterpreted as allowing longer groups of TMCs (one “reporting segment”) if one of the TMCs within the group is longer than the threshold. The Great Lakes Regional Transportation Operations Coalition and University of Wisconsin-Madison Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory recommended that FHWA remove the option to aggregate segments if using the NPMRDS, arguing that it is unnecessary, would involve extra work, and could invite a sort of gerrymandering where poorly performing TMCs can be bundled with better TMCs so measures meet targets. The Minnesota and New Jersey State DOTs, NJTPA, Metropolitan Council, and Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization requested a clarification on the treatment of segments that cross MPO and/or urbanized area boundaries. The NJTPA said that the proposed rule is unclear as to how reporting segments that cross MPO and/or urbanized area boundaries are to be handled. Moreover, it said that none of the measures that MPOs need to report at the MPO level mention how to handle reporting segments that cross an “MPO boundary.” The NJTPA also urged FHWA to revise the rule to allow one set of reporting segments for the freight measures and another set of reporting segments for the remaining measures, reasoning that the standard for locating TMC segment endpoints is not standardized across commercial vendors. According to this commenter, the proposed rule would effectively require that, if a State opts to use an equivalent data set, it would have to use the TMC definitions used by HERE, the vendor that provides the NPMRDS. In order to clarify the default reporting segment in the event that States and MPOs do not agree, AASHTO, Illinois DOT, and Connecticut DOT recommended that FHWA revise the definition of “reporting segment” to say that a reporting segment is the segment set forth in the NPMRDS data set provided by FHWA (or an alternative data set used by the State) unless the State and any applicable MPO determine otherwise. New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations also recommended that the definition of “reporting segment” address the process of which agency defines reporting segments within the urbanized area or MPA, proposing that FHWA amend the proposed definition to state “the State and MPOs cooperatively define . . . .” Oregon and Washington State DOTs requested clarification regarding what type of documentation will be adequate for demonstrating coordination between State DOTs and MPOs for establishing reporting segments. The FHWA recognizes that changes in segment length can present challenges in metric calculation. Segment length changes in the NPMRDS can occur sometimes due to the provider splitting long segments or new roads/improvements necessitating changes in the segmentation. Although it will be difficult to lock in segment lengths for a full year, FHWA will work with the NPMRDS provider to limit segment changes and document any changes made. Also, the proposed Pooled Fund approach to processing/analysis could help alleviate this issue. In regard to aggregation, although there remains an option to join travel time segments into Reporting Segments of longer lengths, State DOTs are not required to take this action. The FHWA has retained the option to allow State DOTs to relate Travel Time Segments to their own roadway segmentation and to ensure travel time data are used at a sufficiently detailed level to provide useful metric calculations. In response to several comments asking if segments in urban areas could be longer than 0.5 miles, in this final rule, FHWA has changed the maximum length for reporting segments to one mile in urban areas, unless an individual Travel Time Segment is longer. The FHWA intends to develop guidance to assist State DOTs and MPOs in the processing of segments to calculate metrics. The final rule does not specify how segments that cross boundaries should contribute to the metric. It is anticipated that data processing guidance will recommend that segments should contribute to the metric only if the entire length of the segment is contained within the applicable area. 9. NHS Coverage in the NPMRDS Data The Great Lakes Regional Transportation Operations Coalition and University of Wisconsin-Madison Traffic and Safety Laboratory commented that NHS coverage in the NPMRDS changes with each static file change, which would alter the calculations. The commenter recommended that calculations be based on only those TMCs that exist in all static file versions within a year. The Illinois DOT commented that since NPMRDS TMC segments are not consistent lengths across months and years, it would be difficult to perform proper analysis because States would not be comparing similar segments across the 4-year reporting time frame. Ozarks Transportation Organization provided a similar comment and noted that the NPMRDS would need to be adjusted regularly in order to be used for performance measures and reporting. The FHWA will work with the NPMRDS contractor to make sure the NHS updates are reflected in the NPMRDS travel time data as soon as is possible. There are inherent delays in providing data on a system that can change, and FHWA has addressed the issues in the rule by making certain requirements consistent throughout a reporting period. Comments received in the second performance measure rulemaking (pavement and bridge conditions) suggested that the impact of measure outcomes due to variations of NHS limits from year to year are not sufficient enough to warrant locking in one definitive NHS limit for a full performance period. This final rule follows the same approach. 10. Travel Times Several commenters expressed support for travel times of 15 minutes (or longer), being used for the travel time-based measures. The commenters asserted that this would lead to, among other benefits, fewer bins with no data, reduced data storage burden, less effort required for quality control and quality assurance, and greater utility for members of the public interested in the data. Commenters argued that the higher level of granularity available in data from 5-minute bins, which provides more precision but not necessarily greater accuracy, does not confer enough additional benefits to justify the extra burden they would impose. Other commenters stated that due to low traffic volumes there may not be any travel time recorded in many 5-minute segments. The NARC commented that if FHWA were to follow its recommendation for processing data centrally, FHWA could then obtain the data in 5-minute (or even 1-minute) bins but provide them to States in 15-minute bins. The AASHTO expressed support for the use of 5-minute bins for national-level performance reporting but stated that data with higher temporal resolution ( e.g., 1-minute bins) have benefits for other purposes such as research. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments expressed concern that for data on freight movements, 5-minute bins may not contain enough data points to maintain the anonymity of individual trucks. The Maine DOT commented that 60-minute bins would be better suited to its needs due to the limited and seasonal nature of its congestion and reliability issues as a rural State with low population density. The FHWA agrees with and appreciates the concerns raised by commenters on the challenges with using 5-minute temporal granularity in the calculation of travel time metrics. Using 15-minute time periods would significantly simplify data analysis in terms of the size of the data set; FHWA estimates that the data set would be reduced by approximately two-thirds. The FHWA received many comments noting the amount of missing data when using 5-minute time intervals. The FHWA conducted an analysis to compare the amount of missing data when using 5-minute time periods to 15-minute time periods and determined that, for the segments analyzed, switching to 15-minute time periods improved data completeness by 25 percent to 30 percent for non-Interstate NHS segments; the resulting NHPP reliability measures differed by no more than 5 percent for Interstate highways. In addition, individual segment level LOTTR values were nearly identical, with an average difference of less than 1 percent for all of the segments evaluated. The assessment showed the greatest difference for the PHED measure, which was likely due to the prevalence of missing data at the 5- minute interval. The FHWA recognizes that larger time intervals reduce the level of specificity and granularity, but believes that the benefits of a more complete data set will allow for more accurate measure calculations. The FHWA does encourage the use of more granular time intervals (1 to 5 minutes) to carry out segment level analysis to better identify strategies to address issues impacting roadway reliability and congestion, but this information is not required to be reported to FHWA. 11. Alternative Data Sets The AASHTO expressed support for FHWA's intent to make the NPMRDS available to State DOTs and MPOs for use in calculating performance measures and to allow States to use an alternate data set. Several State DOTs questioned FHWA's ability to continue to provide the NPRMDS data free of charge in the future raising concerns with the burden on State DOTs to acquire this data on their own if this were to happen. Commenters also expressed concerns with the costs associated with the development of alternate data sets that would comply with the proposed travel time data requirements. The NJTPA asked if equivalent travel time data sets can include data from different vendors or sources or both, as long as it satisfies FHWA requirements. For example, the commenter recommended that FHWA consider a “hybrid” or “fused” data set (such as the TRANSCOM “Data Fusion Engine” travel time data set) that includes travel times from various agency sensors ( e.g., BlueTOAD sensors, toll transponder readers, Sensys pucks) as well as commercial probe data. Iowa DOT asked if the requirement that data “be populated with actual measured vehicle times and shall not be populated with travel times derived from imputed methods” eliminates any specific alternative data sources ( e.g., INRIX) from consideration. Several commenters requested detailed guidance on the approval process for using equivalent data sources in place of, or in conjunction with, the NPRMDS. In particular, the commenters asked what the approval process will look like, who will have the authority to grant the approval, how quickly the approval will be granted after a formal request is made, what information will be required for approval, what happens if FHWA does not approve the data set, and how frequently requests can be made by each State. The commenters also recommended that FHWA include in the final rule a time limit for such requests, stating that approval will be granted if no action is taken once the time limit expires. Rather than requiring State DOTs to get approval for alternate data sets, the Great Lakes Regional Transportation Operations Coalition and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory suggested that it would be more efficient for a central entity ( e.g., CATT Lab or TTI) to house and process travel time data, produce the metrics, and provide results to State DOTs and MPOs for use in target setting and reporting. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, on behalf of the Partners Using Archived Operations Data, recommended that FHWA streamline the process to approve alternate data sets. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization and the State DOTs of Virginia and Minnesota suggested that FHWA approve specific alternate data sets (such as INRIX and TomTom) rather than requiring each State to request approval for these sources. The FHWA believes that the use of the NPMRDS data set by all States and MPOs will promote national consistency among all of the measures. However, FHWA is willing to review commercially available travel time data sets to pre-approve those that are determined to be “equivalent” to the NPMRDS. The FHWA is not currently aware of any commercial data set that is “equivalent,” but requests that if a State DOT or MPO believes that an alternative data set is “equivalent,” then that State DOT or MPO should submit a request to FHWA. The FHWA appreciates that State DOTs and MPOs will need to know if a commercially available data set will be considered equivalent to the NPMRDS before financial resources are used to acquire data. Therefore, FHWA will consider alternative data set providers, on request by a State DOT or MPO, before their decision to use the data to meet the requirements of this final rule. If FHWA reviews a request and determines that the alternative data set is not “equivalent,” then the State DOT or MPO must use the NPMRDS data set. Finally, FHWA retained the proposed regulation to use a single travel time data set (NPMRDS or equivalent) for all travel time derived metrics in this final rule. The FHWA believes that, as the metrics apply to the same roadway segments with the same traffic, it is important to use the same data set to calculate the metrics. The FHWA intends to approve requests for alternate data sets in a timely manner such that the requested data set can be used by the State DOT beginning on January 1st of the year following the request. State DOTs should contact FHWA as soon as practical when considering alternate data sets to provide for sufficient time for the State DOT to acquire the data for use. The October 1st deadline is included in the final rule as the latest date the FHWA believes an alternate data set can be approved for use by the next calendar year. For clarification, in response to questioned raised by commenters, the final rule allows for alternate data sets to be combined with the NPMRDS in whole or in part to meet the travel time data requirements of this rule. 12. Corridors Several commenters expressed a preference for a corridor-based approach to evaluate system performance instead of a segment-based approach and system-wide performance measures. The New York State DOT requested that the final rule to focus on corridors, particularly in urban areas where congestion is likely to occur, that are defined by States and MPOs in ways that are meaningful for State and regional planning. The Washington and Oregon DOTs use a corridor-based approach that they assert allows the State to manage systems based on important functions and characteristics that will be missed by simply having urban/non-urban measures system-wide. As part of an internal evaluation of the performance measures, Purdue University compared segment-based results with a corridor-based approach. According to this commenter, the corridor-based results were consistent with the segment-based analysis in that Interstate routes tended to be more reliable, but the routes for which there were numerous individual segments with a number of high LOTTR or PHTTR values did not exhibit these high values in a corridor-based analysis. Oregon Metro Council and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation urged FHWA to develop an integrated multimodal corridor approach to measuring person throughput and congestion that includes HOV lanes, public transit, and biking and walking facilities. The California Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG) and others commented that freight measures specifically should be focused at the corridor level. The FHWA recognizes that many State DOTs and MPOs use “trips” as the basis for reliability determination and fully supports that approach. However, that approach requires a working knowledge of how the system operates at a corridor level. Determining the length of analysis for these trips is not something that can easily be done in a nationally-consistent way. Instead, FHWA determined that looking at segment level performance was a satisfactory way to provide a consistent approach to measure system performance and traffic congestion in this rule. While State DOTs and MPOs are only required to assess progress on full system performance in this rule, State DOTs and MPOs may use the metrics to assess corridor-specific performance and use corridor-specific information to monitor progress, analyze trends, and establish targets. 13. Weather and Construction Impacts Several commenters expressed concern that extraordinary events such as non-recurring inclement weather, prolonged construction, large gatherings, and insufficient funding will make target setting difficult and will impede agencies' ability to achieve successful performance. Commenters requested FHWA take these events into account in the final rule. The AASHTO recommended that FHWA allow State DOTs and MPOs the flexibility to exclude from calculation and targets roadway segments for periods of inclement weather conditions using a consistent approach and data ( e.g., National Weather Service reports and data archives). The Illinois DOT suggested reports should be based on the number of days and/or center-line miles of facilities that are under construction or impacted by weather in order to keep the data set whole. The NARC suggested that there should be an opportunity for MPOs and States to explain targets and results as part of the reporting protocol to address unique circumstances. The Mid-Ohio Planning Commission suggested including all extraordinary events, as all entities will undertake construction, and this measure would remain consistent with the bridge and pavement rule, which does not change factors for areas with more inclement weather. The Great Lakes Regional Transportation Operations Coalition and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory reasoned that extraordinary events are in the far “right tail” of travel time distributions and would not affect the 80th percentile travel time. The FHWA believes that reliability measures should include travel times during weather- and construction-related events to ensure that the measure reflects the efforts by transportation agencies to maintain and improve roadway operations. The FHWA further believes that the 80th percentile travel time used in the calculation of the NHPP reliability metric will exclude a majority of the longest travel times that occur as a result of extreme congestion events. The variability in travel time resulting from construction operations and other events that impact traffic flow are expected to be included in the measure as operational improvements and management should be able to help alleviate impacts from these events. The FHWA modified the NHFP reliability measure to remove the threshold that would determine if a segment is providing for reliable travel. The FHWA believes that this change will minimize the impact that extreme weather events could have on the metric and measure outcome. The FHWA has also added a provision for all the travel time derived measures that allows removal of travel times from the metric calculations when the roadway is closed. The FHWA has retained the proposed provisions in section 490.109(e)(5) that consider extenuating circumstances, allowing State DOTs to explain the factors they considered when establishing targets and the circumstances that may have impacted their ability to make progress in achieving those targets. The FHWA believes that these provisions will allow State DOTs to document the impact of extreme weather events on performance expectations and their ability to manage system performance. 14. Holidays The FHWA received several comments on whether holidays should be excluded from the travel time-based measures and requested that these exclusions be consistent across all travel time-based measures. The AMPO pointed out that there are issues with consistency in calendar coverage in the proposed rule; holidays were excluded in the PHTTR metric, but not in the LOTTR metric. The commenter expressed concern that these inconsistencies, if not clearly justified, have the potential to add confusion and increase the burden in implementing these measures. A consistent set of time periods would be easier to understand. Puget Sound Regional Council proposed that a consistent set of weekday time periods that excl [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2017-00681. Public record. Not legal advice.