1. Highway Safety Improvement Program —and— Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rules Overview
Welcome
April 2016
SCOHTS Meeting
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. Highway Safety Improvement Program
Overview of Final Rule
Docket #: FHWA
Let’s start with the HSIP Final Rule
FHWA-SA

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 with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
The FAST Act continues the HSIP with an annual apportionment exceeding 2.5 billion dollars. As part of the HSIP apportionment, there is a set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossing Program, which increases incrementally each year under the FAST Act.
The HSIP is legislated under 23 U.S.C. 148 and 150, and the RHCP under 23 U.S.C FHWA further clarifies and prescribes both the HSIP and RHCP requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations - more specifically, 23 CFR Part 924.
The last time we updated the HSIP regulation was in 2009 in response to SAFETEA-LU.
Apportionments (Source: FAST Act Fact Sheets) $
HSIP Billion
RHCP 350* Million
*As per FY2016 Appropriations Act (authorized at $225M)
January 23, 2009 

5. 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. Any references to these requirements has been removed in the HSIP Final Rule.
MAP-21 also added several components. Specifically, MAP-21 required the Secretary to establish the update cycle for Strategic Highway Safety Plans, a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements and the content and schedule for the HSIP report.
While there other changes to HSIP in the final rule, these are what we call the major provisions.

6. State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Requirements
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 *NEW* Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Guidance that is now available on our website.
If your state has not updated the SHSP since MAP-21, the next SHSP revision is due by 8/1/17.
If your state has updated the SHSP since MAP-21 and it’s MAP-21 compliant, the next revision is due no later than 5 years from the previously approved version.

7. HSIP Reporting Content and Schedule
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 related to safety performance outcomes and targets. Beginning in 2017, States will be required to:
Document their annual safety performance targets in the HSIP Report, as well as,
The basis for each target,
A discussion of how the target support the SHSP goals, and lastly
In future years, describe the progress in achieving annual safety performance targets.
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. As required by MAP-21, FHWA posts the HSIP reports to the Office of Safety Website.
There will be no reporting changes for FHWA will be updating the HSIP Reporting Guidance and HSIP ORT for 2017 reporting cycle.

8. 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
The most significant changes to the HSIP regulation is the inclusion of the MIRE FDE.
MAP-21 required the Secretary to establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and to ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection. This subset of MIRE is referred to as the MIRE FDE in the final rule.
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 were based on the State Safety Data Systems Guidance published December 26, 2012 and have since been revised to address the HSIP NPRM docket comments.

9. 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)
In the HSIP Final Rule we added a new section to the regulation that defines the MIRE FDE. The Final Rule bases the MIRE FDE requirements on functional classification and surface type, rather than AADT as proposed in the NPRM. There are now three tables of MIRE FDE.
Table 1 contains the MIRE FDEs for non-local paved roads. There are 37 elements in this table categorized by segments, intersections and interchanges and ramps.
Table 2 contains the MIRE FDEs for local paved roads. There are 9 elements in this table for roadway segments.
Table 3 contains the MIRE FDEs for unpaved roads. There are 5 elements in this table for roadway segments. .
While the FAST includes a provision that would allow States to elect not to collect the MIRE FDE on unpaved roads, the MIRE FDE as defined in this regulation are the minimum roadway data necessary to support a State’s data-driven safety program. Therefore, States will still be expected to collect the reduced FDEs on unpaved roadway segments if they intend to use HSIP funds on these roads.

10. Safety Performance Management Measures
Overview of Final Rule
Docket #: FHWA
Now let’s turn to the Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule
FHWA-SA

11. Major Provisions in the Safety Performance Measures Final Rule
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
A common national definition for serious injuries
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 (States set targets annually; have the option to set urbanized area targets and one target for non-urbanized area) Targets must be identical to NHTSA targets (number and rate of fatalities and number of serious injuries). MPO’s set targets within 180 days after State sets targets (MPO can either support State target or establish a numerical target specific to the MPO planning area);
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). Four out of five targets are either met or better than baseline;
Establishing a common national definition for serious injuries.
Let’s take a look at the Safety Performance Measures Final Rule in more detail.

12. Safety Performance Management Measures for the HSIP – § 490.207
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
Section describes the 5 safety 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 (added from what was in the NPRM)
Each performance measure is based on a 5-year rolling average.
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.

13. Establishment of Performance Targets – § 490.209
States establish annual targets in the HSIP report
Applicable to all public roads
Targets must be identical to NHTSA HSP targets for common measures:
Number of fatalities; Rate of fatalities; Number of serious injuries
States report serious injury data in HSIP report
Urbanized/Non-urbanized Area Targets (optional)
Section identifies the requirements for States to establish targets.
Statewide targets
Since the targets are for the purpose of carrying out the HISP, that are reported in the HSIP report (using the FHWA Online Reporting Toll (ORT)) due before the target calendar year. The first HSIP report that the targets will be due will be August 31, 2017.
States must establish a target for each performance measure defined in 23 CFR
The targets must be based on 5-year rolling averages and are applicable to all public roads regardless of functional classification or ownership.
Unless approved by FHWA a State DOT cannot change one or more of its targets for a given year once it is submitted in the HSIP annual report. In general, a State DOT should not change their targets unless there is a typographical error in the targets that were submitted.
There are 3 performance measures required by this rule that are common to the performance measures that States must submit to NHTSA in their annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP). The common performance measures are to be coordinated through the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).
Targets for these common performance measures must be identical to the targets established in the HSP
While there are national databases for fatalities and for VMT, FHWA will rely on the States to report the total number of serious injuries and the number of non-motorized serious injuries that will be used to determine whether a State met or made significant progress toward meeting its target.
Finally, State DOTs may, as appropriate, establish additional targets for portions of the State.
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).

14. MPO Targets – § 490.209 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
Targets applicable to all public roads in the MPO
Report the VMT estimate used for rate targets and the methodology used to develop the estimate
MPO targets are reported to State DOT and must be available to FHWA, if requested
Section also identifies the requirements for MPOs to establish targets. 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.
Again, since these performance management requirements carryout the HSIP, and the HSIP covers all public roads, the MPO target applies to all public roads in the MPO.
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.

15. 4 out of 5 targets must be: Determination made: Met, or
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 performance for year prior to target establishment (baseline)
Determination made:
End of CY following target year
FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available
A State DOT is considered to have met or made significant progress toward meeting its safety targets when it meets or is better than the baseline for at least four out of the five targets.
The baseline, for these purposes, is the 5-year rolling average for the performance measure ending the year prior to the establishment of the target being evaluated.
FHWA reduced the time lag between the end of the target year and when FHWA would determine target achievement by using FARS ARF in the 5 year rolling average if Final FARS is not available. This allows FHWA to make the target achievement determination one year earlier than was proposed in the NPRM – by the end of the calendar year following the target year.
FHWA will evaluate whether a State DOT has met or made significant progress on the five targets established under (a). FHWA will not evaluate the additional urbanized and non-urbanized targets a State DOT chooses to establish under (b).
The HSIP includes requirements for States that do not meet or make significant progress toward meeting targets. They are: Submit a HSIP Implementation Plan and use obligation authority equal to the HSIP apportionment for the prior year only for highway safety improvement projects.
MPOs will be held accountable for the targets they establish under the updated Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations, not through these regulations. FHWA expects the Planning Rule to be published by July 2016.
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.
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.

16. Optional targets will not be evaluated
Determining Whether a State DOT Has Met or Made Significant Progress Toward Meeting Performance Targets – §
Optional targets will not be evaluated
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
A few more notes on the target achievement determination:
FHWA will evaluate whether a State DOT has met or made significant progress on the five targets established under (a). FHWA will not evaluate the additional urbanized and non-urbanized targets a State DOT chooses to establish under (b).
The HSIP includes requirements for States that do not meet or make significant progress toward meeting targets. These are listed on the slide.
MPOs will be held accountable for the targets they establish under the updated Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations, not through these regulations. FHWA expects the Planning Rule to be published by July 2016.
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.

17. Process Example – Target Assessment
Performance Measure
5-year Rolling Averages
Target Achieved?
Better than baseline?
Met or Made Significant Progress
2012 – 2016 Baseline Performance
Target
Actual Performance
Number of Fatalities
474.0
468.0
472.4 No
Yes
Fatality Rate
0.988
0.980
0.990
Number of Serious Injuries
2,310.4
2,160.0
2,185.6
Serious Injury Rate
4.822
4.572
4.584
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
113.2
110.0
109.4
N/A
Let’s review the performance outcome and target achievement for each of the 5 targets.
The number of fatalities target was The actual performance for the 5 year rolling average from was The target was NOT met, but the performance (472.4) was better than the baseline 5 year rolling average from (474.0).
The rate of fatalities target was The actual outcome was Again, the target was NOT met. The outcome for this measure (0.990) was NOT better than the baseline (0.988)
The number of serious injuries target was 2, The actual outcome was 2, This target was NOT met, but the performance (2,185.6) was better than the baseline (2,310.4).
The rate of serious injuries target was The actual outcome was This target was NOT met, but the performance (4.584) was better than the baseline (4.822).
Finally, the number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries target was The actual performance was This target was met.
As you can see,
One target was met
Three targets were better than the baseline
One target not met and not better than baseline
Since four of the five targets were met or are better than baseline, FHWA would determine that the State met or made significant progress toward meeting its safety performance targets.

18. Implementation Resources
There was a lot of information presented in this presentation on both the HSIP Final Rule and the Safety PM Final Rule. These two rules work together to implement a performance-driven HSIP with the purpose to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

19. HSIP and Safety PM Resources
FHWA’s rulemaking website
Includes:
Summary sheets
Overview Presentation
Guidance
SHSP Guidance (3/14/16)
State Safety Data Systems Guidance (3/15/16)
HSIP Implementation Guidance
Recorded webinar & 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 revised HSIP Implementation Guidance is set to be released within the next few weeks. This document will provide you with specific questions and answers pertaining to the HSIP Program including the safety performance measures requirements.

20. HSIP Final Rule Implementation Resources
FHWA websites:
HSIP:
RSDP:
FHWA will also:
Host webinars
SHSP Guidance
MIRE FDE
Update HSIP Reporting Guidance for 2017
Establish HSIP online reporting tool expert task group
Support HSIP Program Assessments
Provide Technical Assistance (upon request)
FHWA will:

21. Safety PM Implementation Resources
FHWA’s Safety PM website
Includes:
Target setting
Methodology Reports, Peer Exchange, Noteworthy Practices
Target setting coordination workshops & report -Coming Soon
Fact sheets
Safety performance measures
Significant progress
Guidance
Serious injury and NM person type conversion tables-Coming Soon
MPO VMT methodology
Training
NHI Safety PM course-Coming Soon
NHI target setting course- Coming Soon
Technical assistance
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, significant progress determination and VMT methodology. Also planned and coming soon are workshops supporting target setting and coordination.

22. HSIP Implementation Guidance
FHWA Website:
Supports implementation of the HSIP and the Safety Performance Measures Final Rules
Question and Answer format
Provides guidance and information resources
The HSIP Implementation Guidance is a resource that should be used to help navigate through the various elements of the HSIP. It has recently been updated to include the new provisions in both the HSIP Final Rule and the Safety Performance Measures Final Rule and can be found on the FHWA website.
TheHSIP implementation guidance relates existing guidance and information resources to the various elements of the HSIP and Safety PM Final Rules and establishes further guidance.

23. Recap of HSIP & Safety PM Dates
August 31, 2016 
August 31, 2016
Submit annual HSIP and RHCP via online reporting tool
July 1, 2017
Incorporate specific, quantifiable and measureable anticipated improvements for the collection of MIRE FDE into the State Traffic Records Strategic Plan
August 1, 2016
Update the SHSP to be consistent with MAP-21 requirements
State submits CY 2018 targets in HSIP Annual Report
For common measures, identical to targets in HSP submitted in July 2017
July 1, 2017 
August 1, 2017 
August 31, 2017 
Now that we’ve gone over the regulation itself and resources that are available, let’s recap the deadlines associated with the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Review the dates on the slide…

24. Recap of HSIP & Safety PM Dates
February 27, 2018 
February 1, 2018
MPOs establish targets
December 2019
Data available to assess 2018 target achievement
March 2020
FHWA notifies States of determination whether State met or made significant progress toward meeting targets
October 2020
For States that did not meet or make significant progress toward meeting targets: obligation authority limitation, HSIP Implementation Plan due
September 30, 2026
Collect and use the MIRE FDE to improve safety on all public roads
December 2019 
March 2020 
October 1, 2020 
This timeline represents one full cycle of HSIP target establishment, reporting, and assessment.
States will submit CY 2019 targets in the August 2018 HSIP report since this is an annual program.
September 30, 2026 

25. HSIP and Safety PM Final Rules and NPRM Documents
The HSIP and Safety PM Final Rules, as well as the NPRM documents, can be found at the links below:
New rules became effective on April 14, 2016
HSIP (FHWA )
Safety PM (FHWA )
To obtain a copy of the final rules – including the federal register notice that describes the docket comments and changes between the NPRM and the Final Rule in more detail as well as the regulations themselves – please go to the regulations website links shown here. The final rules take effect on April 14, 2016.

26. Contact Info
Contact Info
HSIP Final Rule
Safety PM Final Rule
Karen Scurry, P.E.
FHWA Office of Safety
(609)
Robert Ritter, P.E.
FHWA Office of Safety
(202)
If you have questions, please feel free to contact Karen Scurry for HSIP Final Rule information or Rob Ritter for Safety PM Final Rule questions.