1. Highway Safety Improvement Program
Overview of Final Rule and Fundamental Data Elements
Robert Pollack
Traffic Records Forum
August 9, 2016
Baltimore, MD
Let’s start with the HSIP Final Rule
FHWA-SA

2. Two Final Rules, Different but Related
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Revises existing regulation (23 CFR 924)
Safety Performance Measures
Establishes new regulation (23 CFR 490) to implement MAP-21 Performance Management Requirements
Defines safety performance management requirements
We are reviewing two separate, but related, final rules today. The HSIP Rule (for short) updates the existing HSIP regulation at 23 CFR The Safety PM Rule (for short) establishes a new regulation to implement MAP-21 performance management requirements at 23 CFR 490 and includes the specific requirements related to safety performance management in Subpart B of the regulation

3. Relationship between NPRMs
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(23 U.S.C. 148)
National Goals and Performance Management Measures
(23 U.S.C. 150)
HSIP Program Requirements
(23 CFR 924)
National Performance Management Measures
(23 CFR 490)
Other Performance Measures
(e.g. System Performance, Pavement & Bridge Condition)
Safety Performance Management
(23 CFR 490 Subpart B)
Here you can see the relationship between the HSIP (in blue) and the National Performance Management Measures (in red). Together, these requirements implement a performance-driven HSIP with the purpose to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

4. Core Federal-aid program
HSIP Background
Core Federal-aid program
Purpose: achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads
$2.5 billion annual apportionment
Railway-Highway Crossing Program (RHCP) set-aside
Last rulemaking update took effect:
The HSIP is a core Federal-aid program and the FAST Act continues this program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
The annual apportionment for HSIP exceeds 2.5 billion dollars. As part of that, there is a set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossing Program, which increases incrementally each year under the FAST Act.
The HSIP is included in the Code of Federal Regulations - more specifically, 23 CFR Part 924.
The last time HSIP was revised was in response to SAFETEA-LU, That rulemaking update took effect January 23, 2009.
January 23, 2009 

5. Why is FHWA making this change?
Provide consistency with MAP-21 and the FAST Act
Implement actions required by the Secretary in MAP-21
Clarify existing program requirements
FHWA is issuing this final rule to incorporate changes resulting from the enactment of MAP-21 and the FAST Act, as well as to clarify existing program requirements.
Throughout the development of the final rule, our goal was to minimize the amount of change.
We have retained the existing organization and format.
We have only added new information to align with, but not repeat, the provisions of MAP-21.
Where needed, based on past experience, we have added clarification to assist States with their HSIP.
We strive to be consistent, but flexible, with program implementation

6. Overview of Existing 23 CFR Part 924
924.1 Purpose
924.3 Definitions
924.5 Policy
Program Structure
924.9 Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Reporting
Before we get into a description of the changes in 23 CFR Part 924, let’s take a moment to step back and review the existing structure of Part This basic structure is not changing. Throughout the presentation, we’ll discuss key changes in each section. This discussion will focus on changes between the existing regulation and the Final Rule. In a few instances we’ll discuss differences between the Final Rule and what was proposed in the NPRM that resulted from comments to the docket. If you’d like more information or details regarding the docket comments or changes to the Final Rule based on docket comments, please read the Federal Register notice at the website link provided at the end of this presentation.
Existing 23 CFR Part 924 has 8 sections as shown here. I’ll give you a minute to re-familiarize yourself with these.
PAUSE to allow readers to review the sections (not necessary to read them aloud).
The Final Rule retains the these section numbers and titles. As you’ll see later in the presentation, the Final Rule adds one new section at the end.

7. Legislative Changes and Requirements for HSIP
Items Removed (no longer exist under MAP-21)
Transparency Report
High Risk Rural Roads set-aside and reporting requirements
10% flexibility provision for States to use safety funding per 23 U.S.C. 148(e)
Items Added
State Strategic Highway Safety Plan update requirements
Subset of model inventory of roadway elements
HSIP reporting content and schedule
Most of the changes in the HSIP Final Rule are a result of MAP-21 and not the FAST Act. MAP-21 actually removed several requirements. The HRRR set-aside was eliminated in MAP-21. MAP-21 also removes the 10% flexibility provision that allowed States to use up to 10% of HSIP funds for safety projects under any other section to meet the needs of the SHSP. MAP-21 also removed the requirement for States to submit transparency reports to FHWA.
MAP-21 also added several components. Specifically, MAP-21 requires the DOT to establish the update cycle for Strategic Highway Safety Plans, a subset of model roadway elements and the content and schedule for the HSIP report. FHWA adds MIRE FDE – the model inventory of roadway elements, fundamental data requirements – to satisfy the data system and improvement requirements of MAP-21.
Let’s take a look at the key changes in HSIP.

8. State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Requirements (924
State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Requirements (924.9 Planning)
SHSP update cycle: No later than 5 years from the previously approved version
Consistent with current practice in most states
Reflects current guidance
Starting first with the SHSP, the Final Rule establishes at least a 5-Year SHSP update cycle. This is consistent with current practice in most States and is described in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Interim Guidance FHWA issued April 5, 2013 [update with any new guidance when published].

9. HSIP Reporting Content and Schedule (924.15 Reporting)
Consistent with existing guidance
Document and describe progress made to achieve annual safety performance targets
Schedule
Submit annually
Due by
Submit via online reporting tool
FHWA posts HSIP reports to Office of Safety Website:
August 31 
The content for the HSIP report remains consistent with existing guidance and adds an element to document safety performance targets and the basis on which those targets were established and to describe the progress in achieving annual safety performance targets. This new element integrates the safety performance targets, as required by MAP-21 section 1203, into the HSIP report. The HSIP report will need to include the established safety targets (number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries), trends, and applicability of special rules as defined in 23 USC 148(g). These safety performance targets are to be reported for all public roads by calendar year, consistent with 23 USC 150(d) and the Safety PM Final Rule.
There is no change in the schedule for submitting annual reports. The annual reports will continue to be due August 31. In the Final Rule, the FHWA does require that the HSIP report be submitted via the HSIP online reporting tool. Submitting in this manner will lessen the burden on States and assist FHWA in review and evaluation of the reports. FHWA will then post HSIP reports to the Office of Safety Website as required by MAP-21.

10. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements)
Required to comply with section 1112 of MAP-21
Establish a subset of the model inventory elements that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and
Ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection
Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data Elements FDE (FDE)
Needed to conduct enhanced safety analysis
Potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs
All public roads
This is a new section in the Final Rule – as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 1112 of MAP-21 required the Secretary to establish a subset of the model inventory elements that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and to ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection. Incorporating MIRE FDE into the HSIP regulation is the best way to accomplish this requirement of MAP-21.
Perhaps one of the most significant changes included in the Final Rule is the integration of the MIRE fundamental data elements, a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements, into the HSIP regulation. MIRE FDE are needed to conduct enhanced safety analysis and have the potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs. These elements are not new; rather they are based on the State Safety Data Systems Guidance published December 26, 2012 and revised to address the HSIP NPRM docket comments.
[Note only if asked: The MIRE FDE were developed based on stakeholder input and data requirements of existing safety analysis tools.]

11. MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements)
Three Tables based on functional classification and surface type
Non-Local Paved Roads (37 elements)
Roadway Segments
Intersections
Interchanges/Ramps
Local Paved Roads (9 elements)
Unpaved Roads (5 elements)
New Section MIRE Fundamental Data Elements consists of three tables of MIRE FDEs listing the MIRE name and number for roadway segments, intersections, and interchanges or ramps as appropriate. In a change from what was proposed in the NPRM, the Final Rule bases the MIRE FDE requirements on functional classification and surface type, rather than AADT.
Table 1 contains the MIRE FDEs for non-local paved roads. There are 37 elements in this table.
Table 2 contains the MIRE FDEs for local paved roads. There are 9 elements in this table.
Table 3 contains the MIRE FDEs for unpaved roads. There are 5 elements in this table.
[Note explanation of comments: Several commenters expressed concern over not having good AADT information or estimates thereof. As a result, FHWA did an analysis of data from a sample of 3 states and concluded that approximately 72% of all public roads have < 400 ADT, therefore those roads would be subject to the NPRM Table 2 requirements. The Final Rule maintains the approximate proportion of roads that would fall into each category as compared to using the 400 ADT threshold. This Final Rule has an added advantage of being easier for the States to administer.]

12. MIRE FDE for Roadway Segments
Segment Identifier (1,2,3)
Route Number (1,*)
Route/street Name (1,*)
Federal Aid/Route Type (1,*)
Rural/Urban Designation (1,2*)
Surface Type (1,2,3,*)
Begin Point Seg. Descriptor (1,2,3,*)
End Point Seg.t Descriptor (1,2,3,*)
Segment Length (1,*)
Direction of Inventory (1)
Functional Class (1,2,3*)
Median Type (1)
Access Control (1,*)
One/Two-Way Operations (1,*)
Number of through lanes (1,2*)
AADT (1,2,*)
AADT Year (1,*)
Type of Governmental Ownership (1,2,3,*)
LEGEND
1 – Non-local paved roads
2 – Local paved roads
3 – Unpaved roads
* – HPMS full extent elements
This shows the MIRE FDEs for Roadway Segments across all functional classifications and surface types. We tried to capture a lot of information on this slide, which is evident by the legend on the bottom right corner of the slide. For each element, you will see one or more footnotes. This indicates where each of these elements is required. For example, segment identifier is required for all roads, where as route number is only required for non-local paved roads. In some instances you’ll also see an asterik, and this designates that the item is an HPMS full extent element.
For Reference Only (Source: 2014 HPSM Field Manual)
2.2 Full Extent Data
Within the context of the HPMS system, some data elements must be reported for their full extent (i.e. system-wide). The Full Extent network consists of the National Highway System (NHS) routes (including intermodal connectors) and all other roads, excluding those functionally classified as minor collectors in rural areas and local roads in any area.. Data elements that are reported for these types of roads are referred to as Full Extent data items. For some data items, the Full Extent's coverage also includes ramps associated with grade-separated interchanges for which a limited number of Full Extent data items are to be reported.

13. FDE Roadway Segment Data Elements
Current Resources

14. MIRE FDE for Intersections (Non-local paved roads only)
Unique Junction Identifier
Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point
Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point
Intersection/Junction Geometry
Intersection/Junction Traffic Control
AADT [for each Intersection Road]
AADT Year [for each Intersecting Road]
Unique Approach Identifier
This shows the MIRE FDEs for Intersections on Non-Local Paved Roads (Table 1)

15. FDE Intersection Data Elements

16. MIRE FDE for Interchanges/Ramps (Non-local Paved Roads Only)
Unique Interchange Identifier
Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal
Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal
Ramp Length
Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal
Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal
Interchange Type
Ramp AADT*
Year of Ramp AADT*
Functional Class*
Type of Governmental Ownership*
This shows the MIRE FDEs for Interchanges/Ramps on Non-Local Paved Roads (also shown in Table 1)
LEGEND
* – HPMS full extent elements

17. FDE Interchange Data Elements

18. MIRE FDE Implementation Dates
– Incorporate specific quantifiable and measurable anticipated improvements that prioritizes the collection of MIRE FDE into the Traffic Records Strategic Plan
– Access to a complete collection of MIRE FDE on all public roads
July 1, 2017 
September 20, 2026 
You may be asking, when do the requirements for MIRE FDE take effect?
The Final Rule reflects changes that were made to address public comments. Several State DOTs and AASHTO indicated that the proposed dates were too aggressive. As a result, the FHWA has revised the dates and adjusted the language a bit in the Final Rule.
The Final Rule requires that States incorporate specific quantifiable and measureable anticipated improvements that prioritize the collection of MIRE FDE into their Traffic Records Strategic Plan by July 1, The July 1 date corresponds to the annual due date for States’ Highway Safety Plans. This is approximately 18 months from the effective date of the Final Rule. This additional time will give States time to coordinate with all relevant entities, including local and tribal agencies, to identify and prioritize MIRE FDE collection efforts.
The FHWA also specifies that States shall have access to a complete collection of MIRE FDEs on all public roads by the end of the fiscal year approximately 10 years after the effective date of this Final Rule. This language clarifies that the States only need to have access to data, rather than actually collect the data themselves. The extended deadline for completion of the MIRE FDE allows agencies additional time to collect the data on all public roads.

19. Safety Performance Management
FAST Act
HSIP
Revised list of eligible highway safety improvement projects
Provided States the ability to not collect MIRE FDE on unpaved roads if certain conditions are met.
Safety Performance Management
Clarified significant progress assessment requirements
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or "FAST Act" - the first Federal law in over ten years to provide long-term funding certainty for surface transportation. These Final Rules implement new requirements introduced in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), but also include changes to the HSIP and Safety PM in the FAST Act.
For the HSIP, the FAST Act revised the list of eligible highway safety improvement projects and provided States the ability to not collect MIRE FDE on unpaved roads if certain conditions are met.
For Safety PM, the FAST Act clarified some of the significant progress assessment requirements

20. Use of HSIP Funds (924.5 Policy)
HSIP funds shall be used for projects that are consistent with the SHSP
Use funding for projects with greatest potential to reduce a State’s fatalities and serious injuries
Projects are limited to those on the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)
The policy section of the HSIP regulation clarifies that HSIP funds shall be used for projects that are consistent with the SHSP. It is very important, however, for States to use their funding as effectively as possible. As a result, the Final Rule indicates that funding shall be used for highway safety improvement projects that have the greatest potential to achieve the State’s fatality and serious injury performance targets. This helps FHWA correlate this regulation with the provisions of section 1203 of MAP-21 regarding safety performance targets under 23 USC 150.
The FAST Act limits highway safety improvement projects to those on the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148, which are primarily infrastructure-related projects. As such, the FHWA removed specific provisions that were proposed in the NPRM related to non-infrastructure projects since they are no longer relevant. These provisions include:
Prior to using HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects, the FHWA shall confirm that all funds available for that purpose were programmed.
Requiring states to be able to distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in the STIP.
We’ll talk more about this in the section-by-section analysis that follows, but the final rule maintains the requirement for States to report on non-infrastructure activities that remain eligible under the FAST Act.

21. QUESTIONS????

22. Contact Information
Bob Pollack