1. August 2016 Traffic Records Forum Baltimore, Maryland
Highway Safety Improvement Program’s Safety Performance Measures Final Rule
August 2016
Traffic Records Forum
Baltimore, Maryland
Welcome
FHWA-SA

2. Requirements Initiated by MAP-21 & FAST Act
NHI – Transportation Performance Management (TPM) for Safety Instructor Guide
Requirements Initiated by MAP-21 & FAST Act
USDOT establishes national performance measures for:
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program
National Freight Movement
Transit measure areas
So how did we get to a performance driven Federal Aid Program?
Congress through the Fderal Transportation Bill, MAP-21 required the USDOT to establish national performance measure areas, through rulemaking, for States and MPOs, as well as transit agencies to carry out the Federal Aid Program.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program, also known as the HSIP is the first Federal Aid Program to institute performance measures

3. Relationship between the HSIP and Safety Performance Measures
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(23 U.S.C. 148)
HSIP Program Requirements
(23 CFR 924)
Safety Performance Management
(23 CFR 490 Subpart B)
The HSIP is where the Safety Performance Measures reside. The HSIP’s purpose is to achieve a significant reduction in serious injuries and fatalities on all public roads.
So it makes sense that the Safety Performance Measures reside within the HSIP
Together, these requirements implement a performance-driven HSIP.

4. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
NHI – Transportation Performance Management (TPM) for Safety Instructor Guide
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Updated every 5 years
Infrastructure and behavioral countermeasures
SHSP process approved by FHWA
Requirement of HSIP
Requirement of HSP
Highway Safety Plan (HSP)
Plan submitted annually
Behavioral programs
NHTSA approved
Report submitted annually
Infrastructure improvements
FHWA approved
There are several safety plans in a State and there is a relationship between all of them.
The Strategic Highway Safety Plan identifies a State’s key safety needs and guides investment decisions towards strategies and countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent injuries.
Through regulation, both the HSIP and HSP must be coordinated through the SHSP.
Briefly explain each plan.

5. Safety Performance Management Measures
Overview of Final Rule
23 CFR 490 Subpart B
Now let’s turn to the Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule
FHWA-SA

6. Major Provisions in the Safety PM Final Rule
5 Performance Measures
Institutes the process for State DOTs and MPOs to establish & report on their targets
Institutes the process for FHWA to assess whether a State has met or made significant Progress
Establishes a common national definition for serious injuries
The Safety Performance Measures FR was published in the Federal Registry in March and became effective in April of this year.
The Safety Performance Measures Final Rule can be summarized as having four major provisions. They include:
Establishing five performance measures as the 5-year rolling averages;
Instituting a process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to establish and report their safety targets
Instituting a process for FHWA to assess whether a State DOT has met or made significant progress toward meeting safety targets (Determination made one year after target year, when FARS, HPMS and State serious injury data is available).
Establishing a common national definition for serious injuries.
Let’s look at each provision in more detail

7. National Performance Management Measures for the HSIP
5 Performance Measures
Number of Fatalities
Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT
Number of Serious Injuries
Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries
5-Year Rolling Averages
States and MPOs are required to establish 5 safety performance measures based on a 5 year rolling average
Number of Fatalities
Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT
Number of Serious Injuries
Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries
Additional notes for background, if a question is asked: The 5-year rolling average: Provides a better understanding of the overall fatality and serious injury data over time without eliminating years with significant increases or decrease; and provides a mechanism for accounting for regression to the mean. If a particularly high or low number of fatalities and/or serious injuries occur in one year, a return to a level consistent with the average in the previous year may occur.

8. Establishment of Performance Targets
States establish annual targets
Beginning in August 2017 States will report CY targets in the HSIP Report
Target for each measure (5-year rolling average)
Applicable to all public roads regardless of functional classification or ownership
Targets must be identical to NHTSA HSP targets for common measures:
Number of fatalities
Rate of fatalities
Number of serious injuries
Beginning in August 2017, States will report annual targets in the HSIP Report
States must establish a target for each performance measure and be based on a 5-year rolling averages
These targets are applicable to all public roads regardless of functional classification or ownership.
There are 3 performance measures required by this rule that must be identical to NHTSA’s Highway Safety Grants Program which States report to NHTSA in their annual Highway Safety Plans.

9. Establishment of Performance Targets
Urbanized/Non-urbanized Area Targets
States can establish any number of urbanized area targets and a single non-urbanized area target
Must report the urbanized area boundaries
Must evaluate and report progress for each target
Not included in assessment of target achievement
States may establish additional targets. They may establish any number of urbanized area targets and one non-urbanized area target but these optional targets are not included in the assessment of target achievement.
The urbanized and non-urbanized targets are optional targets and will not be included when assessing whether the State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets. If a State chooses to establish them, they should be reported in the HSIP annual report. Subsequent annual reports must include performance outcomes for those targets.
If they choose to establish these optional targets, States must declare and describe the urbanized and non-urbanized area boundaries they use for the targets in the HSIP annual report.
A non-urbanized area is the single, collective area comprising all of the areas in the State that are not “urbanized areas” defined under 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34).

10. MPO Targets MPOs establish targets 180 days after State
Target for each measure required
Two options to establish targets
MPOs can agree to support the State DOT target; OR
MPOs can establish a numerical target specific to the MPO planning area
For each of the five performance measures, can make a different choice to establish a quantifiable target or agree to support the State’s targets
Multi-State MPOs
Establish one target for the entire metropolitan planning area; OR
Agree to support the State DOT targets for each State
Metropolitan Planning Organizations are also required to establish targets under this rule.
MPO targets are required for each performance measure within 180 days after the State establishes a target.
When establishing a target, the MPO may choose between
Agreeing to support the State DOT target by programing projects in support of the State target;
Establishing specific numeric targets for a performance measure (number or rate);
Or some combination of the two for each individual performance measure. MPOs may choose to establish a specific numeric target for one or more individual performance measures (number or rate) and supporting the State target on other performance measures. For each of the five performance measures, the MPO can make a different choice to establish a safety target or agree to support each of the State’s targets.
MPOs that cross multi-state boundaries that choose to set their own target for a performance measure shall set one target for the entire metropolitan planning area. However, if the multi-state MPO chooses to agree to plan and program projects so that it contributes toward the accomplishment of the State DOT safety target, it must agree to do so for each State target. For example, a MPO that extends into three states and does not elect to establish a fatality safety target for the entire metropolitan planning area, shall agree to plan and program projects to contribute toward three separate fatality number targets.
For rate-based targets, MPO VMT is not available in HPMS (the source for State VMT). MPOs that choose to establish a numerical rate target, must report the VMT estimate used to establish that target and the methodology to develop the VMT estimate. MPOs should make maximum use of data prepared for HPMS when preparing the rate-based target denominator. If an MPO develops data specifically for the denominator, it should use methods to compute VMT that are consistent with those used for other Federal reporting purposes.
MPOs annually report their established safety targets to their respective State DOT in a manner that is documented and mutually agreed upon by both parties.

11. States and MPOs must coordinate on target establishment
Target Coordination
States and MPOs must coordinate on target establishment
Annual targets should logically support LRTP and SHSP goals
State DOTs and SHSOs should coordinate on targets for common performance measures
Coming Soon: State Target Setting and Coordination Workshops for States
It is essential that safety partners coordinate on the establishment of safety targets. States and MPOs are required to coordinate, to the maximum extent possible, on the establishment of targets.
State DOTs should coordinate with State Highway Safety Offices, particularly on the targets for the common performance measures, since those targets must be identical.
We just finished a project that involved going to 7 States and working with them to discuss target setting and coordination practices. They were so successful, FHWA wants to offer them to all States. Start thinking about a month where all stakeholders can come together to begin to discuss setting targets.

12. 4 out of 5 targets must be: Met, or Better than baseline
Determining Whether a State DOT Has Met or Made Significant Progress Toward Meeting Performance Targets –
4 out of 5 targets must be:
Met, or
Better than baseline
(5 year rolling average for the target ending the year prior to the establishment of the target)
Determined at the end of CY following target year
States report targets to FHWA
The 3rd major provision within the rule is assessing if States met their targets.
A State DOT is considered to have met or made significant progress toward meeting its safety targets when at least four out of the five targets have been met or are better than baseline.
The baseline performance is the 5-year rolling average for the target ending the year prior to the establishment of the target. For example, for targets established in 2017 (2018 target), the baseline performance would be years
Achievement will be determined at the end of the CY following the target year. For example, for 2018 targets, FHWA will determine target achievement in December 2019.
If necessary, in response to questions: The risk of unforeseen events or factors outside of a State DOT’s control should be accounted for in the State’s target establishment process. There is no option for a State DOT to indicate that unforeseen circumstances should allow one of its safety targets to be exempt from target achievement assessment.

13. Determining Whether a State DOT Has Met or Made Significant Progress Toward Meeting Performance Targets
Performance Target
Data source(s) used to make determination
Number of Fatalities
Final FARS (FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available)
Rate of Fatalities
Final FARS (FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available) and HPMS data
Number of Serious Injuries
State reported data
Rate of Serious Injuries
State reported data and HPMS data
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
Final FARS (FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available), State reported data
The data sources that will be used to determine if a State DOT has met or made significant progress toward meeting their safety targets.
These data sources rely on national databases as much as possible. The data sources are Final FARS, FARS ARF, HPMS, and state reported serious injury data.
HPMS – Highway Performance Monitoring System

14. Not Meeting or Making Significant Progress Consequence
Requirements if State did not meet or make significant progress toward meeting targets
Use obligation authority equal to the HSIP apportionment for the prior year only for highway safety improvement projects, and
Submit a HSIP Implementation Plan
If a State does not make target achievement the State will have to use obligation authority only for safety projects and submit a HSIP Implementation Plan.
MPOs will be held accountable for the targets they establish under the updated Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations, not through these regulations.
The FHWA Office of Safety will notify State DOTs if they did not meet or make significant progress toward meeting their safety targets. FHWA will make that notification no later than the end of March following the year data becomes available to make the significant progress determination.
For CY 2018 targets – States would use FY 2017 obligation authority in FY 2021

15. Serious Injury Reporting
Up until recently, there was no standard definition for serious injuries
Lead to States using different definitions and coding conventions for reporting
Resulted in Inconsistent and poor data quality
Lastly, the rule established a national definition for serious injuries.
Up until recently, the USDOT did not have a standardized definition for serious injuries. This lead to states using different definitions and coding conventions to report serious injuries. Inconsistent reporting leads to poor data quality.
We all know we need accurate and comprehensive crash data to determine effective countermeasures.
We recognized the importance of improving serious injury data so FHWA and NHTSA established a national definition

16. MMUCC 4th Edition Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
On April 14, 2016, USDOT established a national definition for serious injuries
Within 36 months (by April 15, 2019) all states must use the definition for “Suspected Serious injury (A) from the MMUCC 4th edition
States are required to comply with this new regulation by April 15, All States must use the definition for Suspected Serious Injury from the MMUCC 4th edition.
The new definition will assist in generating information necessary to improve highway safety.
In most States, changes to the database, data dictionary, police crash form and police user manual will be necessary
Now is the time to start considering those changes
MMUCC 5th edition will be released by next summer so while States make changes to the serious injury element, they should consider other changes in the MMUCC 5th edition
Background:
MMUCC is a data set of 110 elements describing motor vehicle crashes, the vehicles, persons and environments involved.

17. Serious Injury Conversion Tables
The State Serious Injury Conversion Tables provide the equivalent definition and attributes for “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” as defined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 4th Edition
The tables also provide equivalent definitions for pedestrian and pedalcyclist as defined in the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) D Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents in order for States to report the required number of non- motorized serious injuries.
In an effort to standardize serious injury reporting until all States use the MMUCC 4th edition definition, NHTSA created serious injury conversion tables that convert the States injury codes to the KABCO scale.
The SI conversion tables also provide the equivalent definitions for pedestrian and pedalcyclist as defined in ANSI D 16 for reporting the non-motorized serious injury data.
Using these conversion tables will assist States with reporting and setting targets in both the HSIP Report and the HSP.
These tables will be up on FHWA’s Safety PM website shortly.

18. HSIP and Safety PM Implementation Resources
FHWA’s rulemaking website:
Summary Sheets
Overview Presentation
Guidance
SHSP Guidance
State Safety Data Systems Guidance
HSIP Implementation Guidance
Recorded Overview Webinar and Slide Presentation
Useful Links
FHWA has implementation materials available. They can be accessed through FHWA’s rulemaking website. Materials include summary sheets, the recorded webinar held for stakeholders on April 1st along with the slide presentation used during the webinar. The HSIP Implementation Guidance was just released last week…which will provide you with specific questions and answers pertaining to the HSIP Program including the safety performance measures requirements.

19. Safety PM Resources
FHWA’s Safety PM website:
Target Setting
Methodology Reports, Peer Exchange, Noteworthy Practices
Target Setting Coordination Workshops & Report – Coming Soon
Fact Sheets
Safety Performance Measures
Significant Progress
MPO-coming soon
Timeline-coming soon
Guidance
MPO VMT Technical Guidance
Serious Injury Conversion Tables – Coming Soon
Since the safety performance measures are a new requirement within the HSIP, FHWA has a variety of safety performance measure support materials available for States. A webpage has been dedicated specifically to Safety Performance Measures and can be accessed by going to the link provided. This page provides a toolbox of resources to include publications on target setting, performance measures, lso planned and coming soon are workshops supporting target setting and coordination.

20. Develop a strategy for coordinating on target setting
What To Do Next
Develop a strategy for coordinating on target setting
Review your fatality and serious injury data, including non-motorized data, and understand historical trends
Develop a plan for coming into compliance with the new serious injury definition
So you may be asking what you should do next.
Beginning with the August HSIP Annual Report, all States will need to establish targets for each of the 5 safety performance measures.
Begin to develop a strategy for coordinating on target setting (involves a host of stakeholders)
Begin to discuss a date for having FHWA deliver safety performance management implementation training to help States and MPOs with coordination and target setting
Start reviewing data trends
Develop a plan for coming into compliance with the new serious injury definition.

21. Contact Info
Contact Info
HSIP Final Rule
Safety PM Final Rule
Karen Scurry, P.E.
FHWA Office of Safety
(609)
Dana Gigliotti
FHWA Office of Safety
(202)