81 FR 23806 - 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 78 (April 22, 2016)

Page Range		23806-23913
FR Document		2016-08014

This NPRM is the third in a series of three related NPRMs 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 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The measures proposed in this third NPRM would 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 NPRM also includes a discussion that summarizes all three of the national performance management measures proposed rules and the comprehensive regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to include all three NPRMs.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23806-23913]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08014]

[[Page 23805]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 78

April 22, 2016

Part II

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Highway Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

23 CFR Part 490

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; Proposed
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 23806]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This NPRM is the third in a series of three related NPRMs 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 Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The measures proposed in this third NPRM
would 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 NPRM also
includes a discussion that summarizes all three of the national
performance management measures proposed rules and the comprehensive
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to include all three NPRMs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2016. Late
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
FHWA-2013-0020 by any one of the following methods:
Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590;
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or electronically through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name and docket number or Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2125-AF54). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT
solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking
process. The DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Francine
Shaw Whitson, Office of Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028; for legal
information: Anne Christenson, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0740,
Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA has published two additional NPRMs
to establish the remaining measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
The first performance measure NPRM proposed establishment of measures
to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and to
assess serious injuries and fatalities, both in number and expressed as
a rate, on all public roads. On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final
rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50) covering the safety-related elements of the
Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking. The second
performance measure NPRM proposed establishment of performance measures
to assess pavement and bridge conditions on the Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP. This NPRM,
the third performance measure NPRM, focuses on measures for the
performance of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate System, and
the CMAQ Program.
This last NPRM includes a discussion that summarizes all three of
the rulemakings, both finished and underway, that will establish the
measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in
Question
C. Incorporating the FAST Act
D. Costs and Benefits
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach
A. Consultation with State departments of transportation,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Stakeholders
B. Broader Public Consultation
C. Summary of Viewpoints Received
1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subparts E and G:
Performance Management Measures to Assess Performance of the
National Highway System and to Assess the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program--Traffic Congestion
2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart F: National
Performance Management Measures to Assess Freight Movement on the
Interstate System
3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart H: National
Performance Management Measures for the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program--On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background
A. Summary of Related Rulemakings
B. Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions
C. Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements
V. Performance Management Measure Analysis
A. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subparts E and G--System
Performance and Traffic Congestion
B. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart F--Freight
Movement on the Interstate System
C. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart H--On-Road Mobile
Source Emissions
D. Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion
A. Subpart A: General Information, Target Establishment,
Reporting, and NHPP and NHFP Significant Progress Determination
B. Subpart E: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway System
C. Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate System
D. Subpart G: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
the

[[Page 23807]]

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--Traffic
Congestion
E. Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--On-
Road Mobile Source Emissions
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

a. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid highway
program by establishing new requirements for performance management to
ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds.
Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of
the Federal-aid highway program and provides for a framework to support
improved investment decisionmaking through a focus on performance
outcomes for key national transportation goals. As part of performance
management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds would make
transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make
progress toward the following national goals: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which
requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance,
condition, or emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement MAP-21 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/performance, to establish targets, to
assess progress toward targets, or to report condition/performance in a
nationally consistent manner that FHWA could use to assess the
condition/performance of the entire system. Without States reporting on
the above mentioned factors, it is difficult for FHWA to look at the
effectiveness of the Federal-aid highway program as a means to address
surface transportation performance at a national level.
This proposed rule is one of several rulemakings that DOT is or
will be conducting to implement MAP-21's new performance management
framework. The collective rulemakings will establish the regulations
needed to more effectively evaluate and report on surface
transportation performance across the country. This rulemaking proposes
regulations that would:
Provide for greater consistency in the reporting of
condition/performance;
Require the establishment of targets that can be
aggregated at the national level;
Require reporting in a consistent manner on progress
achievement; and
Require State DOTs to make significant progress.
State DOTs would be expected to use the information and data
generated as a result of the new regulations to better inform their
transportation planning and programming decisionmaking. The new
performance aspects of the Federal-aid program that would result from
this rulemaking would provide FHWA the ability to better communicate a
national performance story and to more reliably assess the impacts of
Federal funding investments. The FHWA is in the process of creating a
new public Web site to help communicate the national performance story.
The Web site will likely include infographics, tables, charts, and
descriptions of the performance data that the State DOTs would be
reporting to FHWA.
The FHWA is required to establish performance measures through a
rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas \2\ 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) traffic congestion; (9) on-road mobile source emissions;
(10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) performance of the
Interstate System; and (12) performance of the non-Interstate NHS. This
rulemaking is the third of three rulemakings that together, will
establish the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which
requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance
or condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This rulemaking seeks to establish national measures for areas 8,
9, 10, 11, and 12, in the above list. This NPRM proposes to establish
performance measures to assess the performance of the Interstate System
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 areas. The two proposed measures to
assess performance of the Interstate are (1) Percent of the Interstate
System providing for Reliable Travel, and (2) Percent of the Interstate
System where peak hour travel times meet expectations. The two proposed
measures to assess performance of the non-Interstate NHS are (1)
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable Travel and (2)
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times meet
expectations. The two proposed measures to assess freight movement on
the Interstate System are (1) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage
providing for Reliable Truck Travel Time, and (2) Percent of the
Interstate System Mileage Uncongested. The proposed measure to assess
traffic congestion is Annual Hours of Excessive Delay per Capita.
Lastly, the proposed measure to assess on-road mobile source emissions
is Total Tons of Emissions Reduced from CMAQ Projects for Applicable
Criteria Pollutants and Precursors.
In addition, this NPRM builds on the framework of the previous
performance rulemakings and the process proposed for State DOTs and
MPOs to establish targets for each of the measures; the methodology to
determine whether State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress
toward their NHPP or National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) targets
(targets for national measures areas 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12, in the
above list); and the process for State DOTs to use to report on
progress toward achieving their targets.

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

The first performance rule established measures to be used by State
DOTs to assess performance and to carry out the HSIP; the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to use to establish safety targets; the methodology
to determine whether State DOTs have achieved their safety targets; and
the process for State DOTs to report on progress toward achieving their
safety targets. The second performance rule proposed the

[[Page 23808]]

establishment of performance measures to be use by State DOTs to assess
the condition of pavements and bridges and to carry out the NHPP.
With this third rule, FHWA proposes the establishment of:
Performance measures to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to assess
performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS, traffic
congestion, on-road mobile source emissions, and freight movement on
the Interstate System; the process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to
establish targets; the methodology to determine whether State DOTs have
achieved or made significant progress toward their NHPP and NHFP
performance targets; and the process for State DOTs to report on
progress toward achieving their targets. This NPRM includes one general
information area (Subpart A) that covers definitions, target
establishment, reporting on progress, and how determinations would be
made on whether State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress
toward NHPP and NHFP targets. Subparts E through H propose performance
measures in four areas: (1) National Highway Performance Program--
Performance of the NHS covered in Subpart E; (2) Freight Movement on
the Interstate System, covered in Subpart F; and two measures relating
to the CMAQ Program: (3) Traffic Congestion covered in Subpart G, and
(4) On-Road Mobile Source Emissions, covered in Subpart H.
The FHWA had proposed in the prior performance management NPRMs to
establish one common effective date for its three performance measure
final rules. While FHWA recognizes that one common effective date could
be easier for State DOTs and MPOs to implement, the process to develop
and implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures
required in MAP-21 has been lengthy. It is taking more than 3 years
since the enactment of MAP-21 to issue all three performance measure
NPRMs (the first performance management NPRM was published on March 11,
2014; the second NPRM was published on January 5, 2015). Rather than
waiting for all three rules to be final before implementing the MAP-21
performance measure requirements, FHWA has decided to phase in the
effective dates for the three final rules for these performance
measures so that each of the three performance measures rules will have
individual effective dates. This allows FHWA and State DOTs to begin
implementing some of the performance requirements much sooner than
waiting for the rulemaking process to be complete for all the rules.
The FHWA believes that individual implementation dates will also help
State DOTs transition to performance based planning.
On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50)
covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking. With the staggered effective dates,
this Rule will be implemented in its entirety before the other two
rules are finalized.
Based on the timing of each individual rulemaking, FHWA would
provide additional guidance to stakeholders on how to best integrate
the new requirements into their existing processes. Under this
approach, FHWA expects that even though the implementation for each
rule would occur after each final rule is published, implementation for
the second and the third performance measure final rules would
ultimately be aligned through a common performance period. In the
second performance management measure NPRM, FHWA proposed that the
first 4-year performance period would start on January 1, 2016.
However, FHWA proposes in this NPRM that the first performance period
would begin on January 1, 2018. This would align the performance
periods and reporting requirements for the proposed measures in the
second and third performance management measure NPRMs. The FHWA has
placed on the docket a timeline that illustrates how this transition
could be implemented.\3\ However, FHWA seeks comment from the public on
what an appropriate effective date(s) could be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ FHWA Sample MAP21 Rule Making Implementation and Reporting
Dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents of 23 CFR Part 490
This NPRM proposes to add to Subpart A general information
applicable to all of 23 CFR part 490. This section includes
requirements for data, target establishment, reporting on progress, and
how to determine whether State DOTs have made significant progress
toward achieving targets (for applicable measures). Subpart A also
includes definitions and clarifies terminology associated with target
establishment, reporting, and making significant progress for the
performance measures specific to this NPRM. Subparts B, C and D were
previously published in separate rulemaking documents.
Subpart B covered the proposed measures for the HSIP (RIN 2125-
AF49); Subpart C proposed measures to assess pavement conditions on the
NHS and the non-Interstate NHS (RIN 2125-AF53); and Subpart D proposed
measures to assess bridge conditions on the NHS (RIN 2125-AF53).
Subpart E proposes a travel time reliability measure and a peak
hour travel time measure to assess the performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS. Subpart F establishes a travel time
reliability measure and a congestion measure to assess freight movement
on the Interstate System. Subpart G proposes an excessive delay measure
to assess traffic congestion to carry out the CMAQ program. Subpart H
proposes measures that will be used to assess the reduction of the
criteria pollutants and applicable precursors to carry out the CMAQ
program.
Summary of 23 CFR Part 490, Subpart A
In section 490.101, FHWA proposes to add definitions for
``attainment area,'' ``criteria pollutant,'' ``Highway Performance
Monitoring Systems (HPMS),'' ``freight bottleneck,'' ``full extent,''
``mainline highways,'' ``maintenance area,'' ``measure,'' ``metric,''
``Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),'' ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' ``National Performance Management Research
Data Set (NPMRDS),'' ``nonattainment area,'' ``non-urbanized area,''
``reporting segment,'' ``target,'' ``Transportation Management Area
(TMA),'' ``Travel Time Data Set,'' ``Travel Time Reliability,'' and
``Travel Time Segment,'' which would be applicable to all subparts
within Part 490.
In section 490.103, FHWA proposes data requirements that apply to
more than one subpart in Part 490. Additional proposed data
requirements unique to each subpart are included and discussed in each
respective subpart. This section proposes the source of urbanized area
boundaries as the most recent U.S. Decennial Census unless FHWA
approves adjustments to the urbanized area. These boundaries are to be
reported to HPMS. The boundaries in place at the time of the Baseline
Performance Report are to apply to an entire performance period.
Boundaries for the nonattainment and maintenance areas are proposed to
be as designated and reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the
CMAQ program. The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs and MPOs use the
NPMRDS to calculate the travel time and speed related metrics (a metric
means a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition that is used
to develop the measures defined in this

[[Page 23809]]

rule), unless more detailed and accurate travel time data exists
locally and is approved by FHWA for use.
The NPMRDS is a dataset based on actual, observed data collected
from probes, such as cell phones, navigation units, and other devices,
in vehicles that travel along the NHS roadways. The dataset includes
travel time information collected from probes that is available at 5
minute intervals for all segments of the Interstate and NHS where
probes were present. The advent of readily available vehicle-based
probe travel time data in recent years has led to a transformation in
information available to the traveler and the ability for State DOTs
and MPOs to develop performance measures based on this data. Because
travel time data on the entire NHS is available from actual
measurements tied to a date, time, and location on specific roadway
segments, measuring the performance of the system, freight movement,
and monitoring traffic congestion can be much more accurate,
widespread, and detailed. The availability of this data also provides
the potential to undertake before and after evaluations of
transportation projects and strategies. These data requirements are
detailed in proposed section 490.103.
The FHWA is proposing State DOTs and MPOs coordinate to develop
reporting segments that would be used as the basis for calculating and
reporting metrics to FHWA for the measures proposed in Subparts E, F,
and G to assess the performance of the NHS, freight movement on the
Interstate System, and traffic congestion. It is proposed that these
reporting segments must be submitted to FHWA no later than the November
1 before the beginning of each performance period, and the same
segments be used for Subparts E, F, and G for the entire performance
period.
In section 490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that
would be followed by State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for all
measures identified in section 490.105(c), which includes proposed
measures both in this performance management NPRM and the second
performance management NPRM. These requirements are being proposed to
implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target
establishment provisions to provide for consistency necessary to
evaluate and report progress at a State, MPO, and national level, while
also providing a degree of flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs.
In section 490.107, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that
would be followed by State DOTs and MPOs in the reporting targets for
all proposed measures identified in both this performance management
NPRM and the second performance management NPRM.
Section 490.109 proposes the method FHWA would use to determine if
State DOTs have achieved or made significant progress toward their NHPP
and NHFP targets. Significant progress would be determined by comparing
the established target with the measured condition/performance
associated with that target. If applicable, State DOTs would have the
opportunity to discuss why targets were not achieved or significant
progress was not made. For the NHPP and NHFP measures, if FHWA
determines that a State DOT fails to make significant progress over
each of the biennial performance reporting periods, then the State DOT
is required to document in their next biennial performance report,
though encouraged to document sooner, the actions they will undertake
to achieve their targets.
Summary of Proposed Measures for This NPRM (Subparts E--H)
The NPRM gives details on specific measures, which are proposed to
be added to four new Subparts of Part 490 that include:
Subpart E proposes two types of measures that reflect the Travel
Time Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Times experienced by all traffic;
Subpart F proposes two measures that reflect the Travel Time
Reliability and Congestion experienced by freight vehicles;
Subpart G proposes a measure that reflects the amount of Excessive
Delay experienced by all traffic; and
Subpart H proposes a measure that reflects the Emission Reduction
resulting through the delivery of projects.
Travel Time Reliability is being proposed to reflect the
consistency in expected travel times when using the highway system by
comparing the longer trips experienced by users to the amount of time
they would normally expect the trip to take. In Subpart E, the NPRM
proposes a reliability measure that compares the longer trip travel
times to the time normally expected by the typical user of the roadway.
The proposal assumes the system to be ``reliable'' when the longer
travel times are no more than 50 percent higher than what would be
normally expected by users. For example, the system would be perceived
as unreliable when a 40 minute expected trip would take 60 or more
minutes. This proposed measure of reliability only reflects the travel
times experienced during the times when the system is used the most,
which is proposed to be between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
This reliability approach is proposed to establish a measure specific
to the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS.
Subpart F proposes a reliability measure to reflect the consistency
of travel times on the system as experienced by shippers and suppliers.
In this case the measure is a comparison of the longest travel times as
compared to the time normally expected for the trip to take. The
measure considers travel occurring at all hours of the day since this
measure is designed to represent the perception of shippers and
suppliers. In addition, this proposed freight movement measure is
limited to the reliability of the Interstate System. As with all
vehicles, the system is considered to be unreliable when the longest
trip takes 50 percent more time than what would be normally expected.
``Longer'' and ``Longest'' trip travel times are described in more
detail in the discussions of Section 490.505 and 490.607.
Also in Subpart E, as a complement to the reliability measure, the
NPRM proposes a measure that evaluates the travel times experienced by
all traffic during peak hours of the day. In contrast to the
reliability measure which focuses on travel time variability, the peak
hour measure is designed to measure the travel time during certain peak
hours during the day, and how that compares to the desired travel time
for that roadway at that time of day. The desired travel time is
defined by the State DOT and MPO. It is expected that the desired time
would be based on an analysis of how the roadway operates, its design
features, any policy considerations, and how it functions within the
larger system. As discussed previously, reliability reflects the
consistency of trip time durations (e.g., A user makes a trip every
morning that consistently takes 30 minutes). The peak hour travel time
measure reflects the actual length of the trip compared to the desired
travel time for that trip (e.g., Is the 30 minute trip duration too
long for the time of day and the design of the roadway?). The peak hour
measure reflects the actual travel times occurring on non-holiday
weekdays during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The measure is
designed to compare the longest trip time occurring during these hours
to the amount of time desired to take the trip as perceived by the
entities that operate the transportation system. This measurement
approach is applied to the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS
in only the largest urbanized areas

[[Page 23810]]

in the country (those with a population of 1 million or more). The
proposed measure identifies the portions of the system where actual
peak hour travel times are no more than 50 percent greater than the
desired time to take the trip.
As a complement to the truck reliability measure, in Subpart F the
NPRM is proposing a measure that reflects where trucks are experiencing
congestion on the Interstate System. This measure identifies the
portions of the Interstate System where actual truck travel speeds
throughout the year are at least 50 mph. This measure considers use of
the system every day throughout the year.
The NPRM includes two proposed measures that would be needed to
carry out the CMAQ program. The first is a measure proposed in Subpart
G that reflects traffic congestion and the second is a measure proposed
in Subpart H that reflects emission reductions through the delivery of
CMAQ funded projects.
The proposed traffic congestion measure reflects the total amount
of time during the year when highway users have experienced excessive
delay. The measure identifies times during the day when vehicles are
travelling at speeds below 35 mph for freeways/expressways or 15 mph
for all other NHS roadways. The proposed measure is designed to sum the
additional travel times weighted by traffic volumes that occur during
these excessive delay conditions throughout the year. Additionally, the
measure is proposed to be expressed as a rate calculated by dividing
the total excessive delay time by the population in the area.
The proposed emission reduction measure reflects the reductions in
particular pollutants resulting from the delivery of CMAQ funded
projects. The measure focuses on the total emissions reduced per fiscal
year, by all CMAQ-funded projects by criteria pollutant and applicable
precursors in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
More specific details on each of these measures, including
information on the areas where the measure is applicable, are included
in both the Performance Management Measure Analysis Section (Section V)
and the Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and
Proposed Performance Measures Sections (Section VI). In addition, FHWA
has developed short fact sheets for each of these measures that will be
available on the docket.

c. Incorporating the FAST Act

On December 4, 2015, the President signed the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L.114-94; Dec. 4, 2015) into
law. For the most part, the FAST Act is consistent with the performance
management elements introduced by MAP-21. For convenience, this NPRM
will refer to MAP-21 throughout the preamble to signify the fundamental
changes MAP-21 made to States' authorities and responsibilities for
overseeing the implementation of performance management.
For the purposes of this NPRM, the FAST Act made two relevant
changes to the performance management requirements. The first is 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7), which relates to the requirement for a significant
progress determination for NHPP targets. The FAST Act amended this
provision to remove the term ``2 consecutive reports.'' The FHWA has
incorporated this change into this NPRM by removing the term ``2
consecutive determinations,'' which was proposed in section
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), as well as 490.109(f) of the second NPRM,
published January 5, 2015, at 80 FR 326. In section 490.109(f) of the
second NPRM, FHWA stated that if a State DOT does not achieve or make
significant progress for its NHS performance targets for two
consecutive reporting periods (4-year period), then the State DOT must
document in its Biennial Report the actions it will take to achieve the
targets. The FAST Act has changed this. As a result, this NPRM proposes
to require State DOTs to take action when they do not make significant
progress over one reporting period, which looks back over 2 years. With
this change, the significant progress determination is still made every
2 years, but it looks back over a 2-year period instead of a 4-year
period.
The second change the FAST Act made is the addition of 23 U.S.C.
167(j), which requires FHWA to determine if a State has made
significant progress toward meeting the performance targets related to
freight movement, established under section 150(d) and requires a
description of the actions the State will undertake to achieve the
targets if significant progress is not made. To meet the these
requirements, FHWA has incorporated language throughout this NPRM
proposing to require the targets established for the measures in
section 490.105(c)(6) to be included in the significant progress
process and identifying the actions the State DOT will undertake to
achieve the targets if significant progress is not made. The FHWA has
called these the NHFP targets. The NHPP and NHFP use the same process
for assessing significant progress and determining if significant
progress is made.
d. Costs and Benefits
The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new
requirements proposed in this regulatory action. The new requirements
represent a change to the current practices of State DOTs and MPOs. The
FHWA derived the costs of the new requirements by assessing the
expected increase in the level of effort from labor for FHWA, State
DOTs and MPOs to standardize and update data collection and reporting
systems, as well as establish and report targets.
To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed
in labor hours, with a corresponding loaded wage rate \4\ which varied
by the type of laborer needed to perform the activity. Where necessary,
capital costs were included as well. Most 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 proposed rule
according to two scenarios. First, assuming that FHWA provides State
DOTs and MPOs with the required data from NPMRDS, the 11-year
undiscounted incremental costs to comply with this rule are $165.3
million (Scenario 1).\5\ Alternatively, under ``worst case'' conditions
where State DOTs would be required to independently acquire the
necessary data, the 11-year undiscounted incremental costs to comply
with this rule are $224.5 million (Scenario 2). The total 11-year
undiscounted cost is approximately 36 percent higher under Scenario 2
than under Scenario 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost Index, 2012.
\5\ In FHWA's first two performance measure NPRMs, it assessed
costs over a 10-year study period. Because FHWA is now proposing
individual effective dates for each of its performance measure rules
rather than a common effective date, the timing of the full
implementation of the measures has shifted. Using an 11-year study
period ensures that the cost assessment includes the first 2
performance periods following the effective date of the rulemaking,
which is comparable to what the 10-year study period assessed in the
first two NPRMs. An 11-year study period captures the first year
costs related to preparing and submitting the Initial Performance
Report and a complete cycle of the incremental costs that would be
incurred by State DOTs and MPOs for assembling and reporting all
required measures as a result of the proposed rule. The FHWA
anticipates that the recurring costs beyond this timeframe would be
comparable to those estimated in the 10-year period of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA performed three separate break-even analyses as the
primary approach to quantify benefits. The FHWA focused its break-even
analyses

[[Page 23811]]

for (1) enhancing performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS by relieving congestion, and (2) improving freight
movement on the value of travel time savings. The FHWA estimated the
number of hours spent in congestion needed to be saved by commuters and
truck drivers in order for the benefits of the rule to justify the
costs. For each of these break-even analyses, FHWA presents results for
both Scenario 1 (FHWA provides access to NPMRDS) and Scenario 2 (State
DOTs must independently acquire the necessary data). The FHWA focused
the third break-even analysis on reducing emissions. The FHWA estimated
the reduction in pollutant tons needed to be achieved in order for the
benefits of the rule to justify the costs.
The aforementioned benefits are quantified within the analysis,
however, there are other qualitative benefits which apply to the
proposed rule as a whole that result from more informed decisionmaking
on congestion and emissions-reducing project, program, and policy
choices. The proposed rule also would yield greater accountability
because MAP-21-mandated reporting would increase visibility and
transparency of transportation decisionmaking. The data reported to
FHWA by the States would be available to the public and would be used
to communicate a national performance story. The FHWA is developing a
public Web site to share performance related information. In addition,
the proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway program on
achieving balanced performance outcomes.
The results of the break-even analyses quantified the dollar value
of the benefits that the proposed rule must generate to outweigh the
cost of the proposed rule. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule
would surpass these thresholds and, as a result, the benefits of the
rule would outweigh the costs.
Table 1 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 1--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Discount Notes
Primary Low High Year dollar rate (%) Period covered
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Annualized Monetized None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... Not Quantified.
($millions/year). None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
Annualized Quantified......... None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... Not Quantified.
None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative................... More informed decisionmaking on freight-, congestion-, and air quality-related project, program, and policy choices; greater Proposed Rule RIA.
accountability due to mandated reporting, increasing visibility and transparency; enhanced focus of the Federal-aid highway
program on achieving balanced performance outcomes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Annualized Monetized Scenario 1: $15,651,062.. ................... ................... 2012............... 7 11 Years............. Proposed Rule RIA.
($millions/year). Scenario 2: $21,194,462..
Scenario 1: $15,304,231.. ................... ................... 2012............... 3 11 Years.............
Scenario 2: $20,760,510..
Annualized Quantified......... None..................... None............... None............... 2012............... 7 11 Years............. None.
None..................... None............... None............... 2012............... 3 11 Years.............
Qualitative................... ......................... ................... ................... ................... ........... ..................... ..............................
Transfers:
Federal Annualized Monetized None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... None.
($millions/year). None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
From/To....................... From:.................... ................... ................... To:................ ........... .....................
Other Annualized Monetized None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 7 NA................... None.
($millions/year). None..................... None............... None............... NA................. 3 NA...................
From/To....................... From:.................... ................... ................... To:................ ........... .....................
Effects:
State, Local, and/or Tribal Scenario 1: $15,271,675.. ................... ................... 2012............... 7 11 Years............. Proposed Rule RIA.
Government. Scenario 2: $21,189,733..
Scenario 1: $14,931,176.. ................... ................... 2012............... 3 11 Years.............
Scenario 2: $20,756,223..
Small Business................ None NA................. NA NA................... None.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages......................... None
Growth........................ Not Measured
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations

[[Page 23812]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym or abbreviation Term
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AADT......................................... annual average daily traffic
AASHTO....................................... American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
CAA.......................................... Clean Air Act
CFR.......................................... Code of Federal Regulations
CMAQ......................................... Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
CO........................................... Carbon monoxide
DOT.......................................... U.S. Department of Transportation
EO........................................... Executive Order
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
NHTSA........................................ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NOX.......................................... Nitrogen oxide
NPMRDS....................................... National Performance Management Research Data Set
NPRM......................................... Notice of proposed rulemaking
O3........................................... Ozone
OMB.......................................... Office of Management and Budget
PM........................................... Particulate matter
PRA.......................................... Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
RIA.......................................... Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN.......................................... Regulatory Identification Number
SHSP......................................... Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SME.......................................... Subject matter experts
State DOTs................................... State departments of transportation
TMA.......................................... Transportation Management Areas
TMC.......................................... Traffic Message Channel
TTI.......................................... Texas Transportation Institute
U.S.C........................................ United States Code
VMT.......................................... Vehicle miles traveled
VOC.......................................... Volatile organic compound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

This section of the NPRM summarizes DOT's engagement and outreach
with the public and with affected stakeholders during the NPRM
development process and the viewpoints they shared with DOT during
these consultations. Section III includes three sub-sections:
Sub-section A provides a general description of the
stakeholder consultation process;
Sub-section B describes the broader public consultation
process; and
Sub-section C summarizes stakeholder viewpoints shared
with DOT. This sub-section is organized sequentially around the three
major measurement focus areas of this rulemaking, including: (1) system
performance and traffic congestion measures, (2) freight movement
measures, and (3) on-road mobile source emissions measures.
Stakeholder engagement in developing the NPRMs is required by 23
U.S.C. 150(c) to enable DOT to obtain technical information as well as
information on operational and economic impacts from stakeholders and
the public. State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and private and non-
profit constituents across the country participated in the outreach
efforts. A listing of each contact or series of contacts influencing
the agency's position can be found in the docket.

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

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1), DOT consulted regularly
with affected stakeholders (including State DOTs, MPOs, industry
groups, advocacy organizations, etc.) to better understand the
operational and economic impact of this proposed rule. In general,
these consultations included:
Conducting listening sessions and workshops to clarify
stakeholder sentiment and diverse opinions on the interpretation of
technical information on the potential economic and operational impacts
of implementing 23 U.S.C. 150;
Conducting listening sessions and workshops to better
understand the state-of-the-practice on the economic

[[Page 23813]]

and operational impacts of implementing various noteworthy practices,
emerging technologies, and data reporting, collection, and analysis
frameworks;
Hosting webinars with targeted stakeholder audiences to
ask for their viewpoints through a chat pod or conference call;
Attending meetings with non-DOT subject matter experts,
including task forces, advocacy groups, private industry, non-DOT
Federal employees, academia, etc., to discuss timelines, priorities,
and the most effective methods for implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; and to
discuss and collect information on the issues that need to be addressed
or the questions that need to be answered in the NPRMs to facilitate
efficient implementation.

B. Broader Public Consultation

It is DOT's policy to provide for and encourage public
participation in the rulemaking process. In addition to the public
participation that was coordinated in conjunction with the stakeholder
consultation discussed above, DOT provided opportunities for broader
public participation. The DOT invited the public to provide technical
and economic information to improve the agency's understanding of a
subject and the potential impacts of rulemaking. This was done by
providing an email address ([email protected])
feature on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site to allow the public to provide
comments and suggestions about the development of the performance
measures and by holding national online dialogues and listening
sessions to ask the public to post their ideas on national performance
measures, standards, and policies. The DOT also conducted educational
outreach to inform the public about transportation-related performance
measures and standards, and solicited comments on them.
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(2)(A), FHWA will ``provide
States, metropolitan planning organizations, and other stakeholders not
less than 90 days to comment on any regulation proposed by the
Secretary . . .'' During the notice and comment period, FHWA plans to
hold public meetings to explain the provisions contained in these
NPRMs, including this NPRM. All such meetings will be open to the
public. However, all comments regarding the NPRM must be submitted in
writing to the rulemaking docket.

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received

This section summarizes some of the common themes identified during
the stakeholder outreach. It is important to note that some of the
stakeholder comments related to more than one topic. In that case, the
comments were placed under the theme most directly affected. The three
themes include:
Subparts E and G: Performance Management Measures to
Assess Performance of the National Highway System and for Assessing
Traffic Congestion.
Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures to
Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and
Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures for
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions.
1. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subparts E and G: Performance
Management Measures To Assess Performance of the National Highway
System and For Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA separated the stakeholder comments on the performance and
congestion measures into four general areas, listed below and the
comments are summarized in each of those areas.

Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Approaches
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Calculation
Methods
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges
a. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on System Performance and Traffic
Congestion Measurement Approaches
Stakeholders provided input to DOT on many different measure
approaches for assessing either performance on the Interstate System
and non-Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP or
assessing traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
program. In general, stakeholders' suggested approaches fell within the
following categories:
Speed and Traffic Flow-based Approaches--Some stakeholders
suggested continued use of traffic flow-based performance measures
already widely in use by transportation agencies. They suggested
several variations on traffic flow-based approaches including use of
``Level of Service'' classifications described in the Transportation
Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual, volume to capacity ratios, or
actual vehicle speeds relative to free-flow speeds. Some stakeholders
noted that data to support these measure approaches is widely
available.
Spatial and Temporal Extent of Congestion-based
Approaches--Some stakeholders suggested that the spatial or temporal
extent of congestion should be used as the basis for measuring
performance. Suggestions included measures of the portion of system
segments exceeding acceptable travel times and measures of how traffic
and freight in a corridor are balanced across parallel roads and other
modes. For a temporal-based measure, stakeholders suggested that this
information could be used to help plan strategies for moving traffic
from more congested to less congested routes or find the best ways to
increase corridor capacity.
System Throughput Efficiency and Vehicle Occupancy-based
Approaches--Some stakeholders suggested throughput or vehicle
occupancy-based measures of performance. Variations of throughput and
vehicle occupancy measures suggested by stakeholders included the
quantity of vehicles, goods, or people per lane hour or vehicle
occupancy rates. Stakeholders described ``spillover'' benefits from
improving throughput efficiency or vehicle occupancy including fewer
crashes, lower emissions, and lower demand for infrastructure. Some
stakeholders, however, noted that access to or availability of
throughput or occupancy data for non-highway modes is a challenge.
Travel Time-based Approaches--Many stakeholders suggested
that travel time should be used as the basis for measuring performance.
They offered many variations for characterizing travel time performance
including ``travel time per person,'' ``travel time per vehicle,''
``travel delay per person,'' ``travel delay per vehicle,'' and
``percent of commutes less than 30 minutes,'' as well as use of these
metrics to create planning time, travel time, travel slowness, or
travel reliability indices. Some stakeholders also noted that travel
time-based approaches might be adaptable for use in measuring transit,
pedestrian, or bicycle system performance as data collection methods
improve in the future. Many stakeholders who indicated support for
travel time-based approaches stressed the importance of travel time
reliability as a parameter that transportation users value highly. Some
stakeholders who favored travel time-based approaches suggested that
travel time measures are particularly relevant because travel time
generally varies more than travel distance and it can be

[[Page 23814]]

influenced by State DOTs' and MPOs' operations practices.
Accessibility and Trip Generation-based Approaches--Many
stakeholders indicated a preference for accessibility measures over
travel time-based measures as a basis for measuring performance.
Several stakeholders indicated a concern that travel time-based
measures emphasize mobility and may encourage dispersed land use
patterns; whereas accessibility measures would emphasize ease of access
to transportation options and consideration of where trips are
generated. Stakeholders suggested many variations for characterizing
accessibility or trip generation including ``vehicle trip rate per
household,'' ``transportation efficiency based on distance,'' ``miles
traveled per employee,'' ``vanpool passenger mileage,'' ``number of
employment locations reachable during rush hour within the travel time
of the average commute,'' ``average home to work commute time,''
``number of households able to reach businesses during off-peak hours
within a reasonable time,'' or ``time required to go from place to
place.'' Some proponents of accessibility measures also suggested these
measures may encourage greater consideration of non-auto travel modes
like transit, carpooling, vanpooling, walking, and bicycling or options
like telecommuting that tend to be more practical on systems with
greater accessibility.
b. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Calculation Methods
Stakeholders provided considerable input to DOT on detailed aspects
of measure calculation methods. In general, stakeholders' suggestions
fell within the following categories:
Geographic Focus for Measures--Some stakeholders suggested
performance measures should focus only on major corridors or in
urbanized areas. They noted that current practice emphasizes corridor-
level analysis and that the impact of heavily congested corridors may
be masked by system-wide measures that include mostly uncongested
system elements. Other stakeholders suggested that measures should
focus on optimizing overall system performance rather than facility
performance, with ``system'' being defined to include multimodal
facilities as well as highways. Some stakeholders, however, suggested
measures should be geographically scalable so that they can be used
either on individual facilities or at a system-wide level.
Temporal Focus for Measures--Some stakeholders suggested
that performance measures should place particular emphasis on peak
period travel to maximize productivity of roads during peak periods by
minimizing congestion, reducing growth in VMT, and using the most
cost[hyphen]effective methods to move people and goods. Other
stakeholders suggested measures should generally be scalable on a
temporal basis so they can be evaluated based on variable periods of
time, such as individual hours, or grouped into peak periods.
Travel Time Measurement Options--Stakeholders offered
several suggestions for developing effective travel time-based
measures:

--Selection of Travel Time Percentiles for Travel Reliability Index--
Some stakeholders suggested that when formulating a travel reliability
index, the 85th or 90th percentile travel time should be used rather
than the 95th percentile because the highest percentile travel times
may be outliers that do not reflect the impacts of day-to-day
operations strategies on the system.
--Use of Travel ``Slowness'' as an Index--Some stakeholders suggested
that reversing the widely used travel time index creates a more
understandable metric by expressing congestion in terms of how slowly
traffic is moving rather than in terms of how long trips take; they
suggested, as an example, that describing a facility or system as
operating at two-thirds of its desired performance (66.6 percent) is
more understandable than saying it has a travel time index of 1.50.
--Threshold Times for Travel Indices--Some stakeholders suggested that
free flow speed is appropriate to use in calculating travel time-based
indices. Other stakeholders indicated that free flow or posted speeds
are unrealistic because State DOTs lack resources to achieve free flow
conditions across their networks. ``Maximum throughput'' speed was
suggested by some stakeholders as an alternative to free flow speed
which they indicated is usually 70 to 85 percent of free flow but
varies by facility.
--Travel Time Data Collection--Some stakeholders suggested collecting
origin and destination travel time data via techniques such as license
plate surveys for vehicles or for other modes by riding bicycle or
transit corridors to collect data.

Methods for Improving Accuracy of Vehicle Occupancy
Counts--Some stakeholders who supported vehicle occupancy-based
measures suggested use of a combination of technology-based data
collection methods for improving the consistency of vehicle occupancy
data, such as automated video image processing or in-vehicle
technologies like seat belt detectors, and survey or counting
techniques, such as manual field counts, home interviews, transit rider
counts, census survey questions, or trip generation studies at
employment centers. Stakeholders noted that occupancy data collection
can be costly and may not need to be comprehensive to provide
reasonable estimates.
Use Census and American Community Survey Data--Some
stakeholders suggested U.S. Census data could be used to examine
performance, including information on commuting contained in the
Census. Other stakeholders also suggested DOT could work with the
Census to develop self-monitoring technologies, like Global Positioning
Systems (GPS), or to build on the model of the American Community
Survey and develop a continuous data collection resource for more
detailed commuting information. Some stakeholders suggested developing
standardized survey templates for communities to use for their own
travel surveys.
c. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles
Stakeholders provided DOT with input on general principles for
selecting measures. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within
the following categories:
Measures Should Be Simple To Understand--Many stakeholders
suggested that measures should be simple for the general public to
understand, with some further suggesting that travel time-based
measures, particularly travel reliability, are well understood by the
general public.
Measures Should Rely on Readily Available Data--Some
stakeholders suggested that measures should not include burdensome data
collection requirements and that data collection and analysis
requirements should be flexible and relevant to community needs. Some
stakeholders noted that investment is needed in resources such as
analysis tools and reporting mechanisms and guidance to make
performance measures meaningful and useful.
Measures Should Reflect MAP-21 National Goals--Some
stakeholders suggested that DOT should select a set of measures that
reflect MAP-21 national goals that benefit from reducing congestion
while providing safer, more

[[Page 23815]]

sustainable transportation systems that increase accessibility.
States Should Be Allowed To Select Measures/Avoid ``One-
Size-Fits-All'' Measures--Some stakeholders suggested that selection of
measures should be at the discretion of the State DOT or MPO, with
Federal requirements focusing on monitoring and reporting of States'
measures. It was also suggested that performance measures should not
follow a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach and should allow for
flexibility. Stakeholders noted that agencies have many options for
improving traffic conditions, not only by adding capacity, but also by
improving operations or reducing travel demand, and agencies' choices
will depend on unique constraints determined by available funding,
physical geography, and regional priorities. Stakeholders suggested
that FHWA should allow agencies to tell their ``story'' via customized
measures that reflect the unique strategies they use to manage
congestion. Other stakeholders suggested that differences in data
availability from place to place will preclude standardization and
reasoned that FHWA should allow variation in measures because this will
ensure agencies begin to assess performance.
Ensure Standardization of Measures--Some stakeholders
suggested that although allowing use of different measures is appealing
because it gives flexibility to States, it will also make national-
level analysis difficult. Based on this reasoning, these stakeholders
concluded that measures should be standardized.
Avoid Measures That Cause Policy Bias--Some stakeholders
suggested that the choice of measures (e.g., per vehicle mile or per
capita) will influence how communities prioritize projects. For
example, these stakeholders explained that policy decisions may be
different if the measure is based on per vehicle mile crashes or per
capita crashes because reporting changes in crashes per vehicle mile
fails to reflect reductions in total vehicle mileage.
Measures Should Capture Wider Impacts--Some stakeholders
suggested that performance metrics should capture the effects of
transportation investments on economic growth, efficient land use,
environment, and community quality of life, and should support
development of wider choices for solving congestion.
Measures for Individual Modes--Some stakeholders suggested
metrics should measure performance across transportation modes as a way
to encourage development of multimodal transportation solutions. Other
stakeholders expressed interest in measures that allow direct
comparison of the benefits and costs of all modes (e.g., transit,
transportation demand management, road construction, system
management). Stakeholders noted that if such metrics were pursued, they
should consider the full extent of externalities in the calculation of
costs. In particular, some stakeholders suggested that travel time-
based measures should take into account all parts of a trip (walking,
parking, driving, transit, etc.) to reflect overall transportation
network performance.
Measures Should Establish Minimum Acceptable Performance
Levels--Some stakeholders suggested that performance measures should
help transportation agencies identify where corridors fall below
minimum performance levels and help communities identify alternatives
that allow them to reach that minimum performance level.
Distinguish Between Congestion and Reliability--Some
stakeholders noted a distinction between recurrent congestion and
travel time reliability, noting that agencies typically have limited
control over recurrent congestion that is caused by physical capacity
constraints. On the other hand, stakeholders explained that reliability
can be influenced by efficient management of non-recurring incidents. A
focus on reliability, according to these stakeholders, would give
agencies credit for operational improvements that may improve travel
time reliability but do not necessarily increase capacity.
d. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges
Stakeholders provided DOT with input on perceived measurement
challenges. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within the
following categories:
Travel Time-based Measures Do Not Capture System
Accessibility Benefits--Some stakeholders expressed concern that
reliance on travel time-based measures alone may penalize densely
developed communities that offer high levels of accessibility but not
necessarily shorter travel times.
Measures Should Recognize That Reducing Congestion Is
Impractical in Some Regions--Some stakeholders suggested that measures
should acknowledge that, in fast growing areas, the rate of congestion
growth can only be slowed down, not reversed.
Some Measures May Favor Adding Road Capacity Over Non-Auto
Solutions to Congestion--Some stakeholders expressed concerns about
measure approaches they think are more likely to encourage road
capacity additions that generate sprawl and are expensive to maintain,
versus alternative solutions such as transit, carpools, bicycling,
telework, or shifting work hours. Measurement approaches for which this
concern was raised included measures that emphasize travel time per
mile or vehicle speeds. Other stakeholders suggested that land use is a
stronger influence on decisions to add road capacity than travel time
or vehicle speeds.
Target Setting for Congestion Is Premature--Some
stakeholders suggested that system (congestion) performance measurement
is one of the least mature and least robust measurement areas in
transportation and that developing consistent data sets and
understanding the patterns, causes, and trends in congestion is more
important than establishing targets. Stakeholders suggested that a set
of realistic performance targets should be determined locally (State
and region) only after trend data and explanatory variables have been
collected, analyzed, and made available for multiple years, thus
creating a transition period or phased implementation of congestion
related MAP-21 performance measurements.
System-wide Measures Do Not Support Project-Level
Decisionmaking--Some stakeholders expressed concern that national-level
measures of performance are not sufficient to guide specific
investments because they are not sensitive enough to capture the
results of specific strategies and projects.
2. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart F: National Performance
Management Measures To Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System
Freight movement is multidimensional and includes a variety of
public and private stakeholders with unique perspectives. In addition
to the public participation and stakeholder consultation described in
Section III.A., of this NPRM, DOT held listening sessions with
representatives of the freight stakeholder community from the private
and public sectors. Outreach to stakeholders through these sessions
provided valuable information for FHWA to consider in developing the
proposed measures. The major themes collected from each session and
relevant academic research are detailed below.
Freight Roundtable
The FHWA held a Freight Roundtable event that brought together
membership of the Freight Policy Council, a group of the executive
leadership in each

[[Page 23816]]

operating administration at DOT, with multimodal industrial
representatives and State and local leaders. Discussion was focused on
freight planning and performance measurement. Panelists representing
the freight community provided insights into both planning and
measurement practices, issues, needs, and opportunities. Major themes
of the subsequent discussion focused on multimodal measurements
including reliability, trip time, access, safety, accident recovery,
and economic measures. Predominant measure suggestions included
reliability and travel time, which were described by a majority of
attendees as the most valuable to the freight system user in the
movement of goods.
State-Level Stakeholders
The FHWA held a listening session for State-level stakeholder
organizations as these organizations have followed MAP-21's development
and DOT's implementation activities and will have responsibility for
reporting on the measures. These State-level stakeholders have
advocated transportation-related policies and developed a significant
amount of transportation research and findings that have contributed to
the performance measure discussions surrounding MAP-21 implementation.
Their suggestions included measures such as travel time, reliability,
and bottleneck identification. Specifically, participants described
travel time, reliability and speed as important to understand economic
efficiency. Concern was expressed regarding data collection, cost, and
burden to the States. Additionally, participants noted concern about
external factors that are harder to measure or consider, as well as a
lack of control over measures for safety or economics, where States do
not want to be evaluated because they have little control in how to
influence the measure. There was some discussion on targets and
thresholds, noting that measuring speed and travel time against posted
speed would be challenging due to regulators on trucks that limit
speed, and variations in external factors would need to be considered
by States in setting targets.
In addition to the listening session, the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) performed a
comprehensive analysis of the MAP-21 provisions and wrote a letter that
contained recommendations approved by their membership for the MAP-21
Performance Measure Rulemaking. Other stakeholders and individuals
provided recommendations as well. These letters are all posted on the
docket for review. For freight movement on the Interstate, these
recommendations included the following:
National level performance measures may not be the same
performance measures State DOTs would use for planning and programming
of transportation projects and funding.
National level performance measures should be specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, timely, and simple.
National level performance measures should focus on areas
and assets where State DOTs have control.
The initial set of national-level performance measures
should build upon existing performance measures, management practices,
data sets, and reporting processes.
National level measures should be forward thinking to
allow continued improvement over time.
Messaging the impact and meaning of the national-level
measures to the public and other audiences is vital to the success of
this initiative.
Flexibility in target setting to allow States to set their
own thresholds and targets.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Regional Organizations
Like State-level stakeholders, MPO and regional organization
freight representatives provided input in the MAP-21 outreach process
for freight movement on the Interstate performance measures. In a
listening session held with these representatives, key themes were
consideration of hours of service for truck operators, economic
efficiency, job creation measures, environmental measures, congestion,
travel speed, and reliability. These stakeholders also identified
information from shippers as necessary for interpreting the user
perspective. Representatives supported travel time and reliability as
most critical for measurement and indicated that these measures were
most important for businesses in their regions.
Additional regional organization stakeholders, representing both
urban and rural areas, further called for consistency in the adoption
of measures that could best describe the freight system while
considering differences in mode, geography, locations of freight
facilities, and practices. Additional concerns were related to how to
adapt freight performance measures to current measures that may not
provide the correct picture of freight movement even though they are
good measures for passenger transport or some other function. Finally,
representatives supported measures that identified reliability and the
refinement and use of data for measuring reliability on freight
corridors.
Trucking Industry and Freight Business Stakeholders
The FHWA held listening sessions with stakeholders representing a
subset of the freight industry, primarily trucking, whose performance
would be measured as part of this rule. These stakeholders represent
various parts of the flow of goods from origin to destination and
depend on the freight system for on-time deliveries of goods. More
specifically, these stakeholders include professional truckers such as
corporate drivers, owner-operators, and retired truckers,
representatives of trucking companies, shippers, and related
businesses.
The main comments received from these stakeholders related to truck
parking, highway average speeds, bottlenecks, safety, oversize and
overweight inconsistencies, tolls, and delay. Average speed was
important to stakeholders because it provided drivers and industrial
planners with the information they needed to plan routes and delivery
schedules. Stakeholders identified reliability as important because it
provides the driver with the flexibility to plan routes and deliveries
by knowing what to expect at what time. One participant noted that it
is very difficult for a driver to say that average speed is more
important than travel time or reliability--this depends on time of day
or where the driver needs to go. The participant gave examples where he
could drive in and out of a metropolitan area without issue at one time
of day but have significant delays at other times. Time of day and
other external factors were said to be important when measuring
performance.
Some shipper and business owner comments, as well as those of their
own drivers, suggested that performance measures for freight include
safety, travel time, hours of service, trends of delay, speeds, and
connections to other modes or access. They said time was critical
because travel times are useful in planning deliveries. Further,
measuring trends of delay could help identify better opportunities for
route plans. These stakeholders noted that bottlenecks, speed, and
travel time information were important to measure and further,
identified speed as a useful measure for determining bottlenecks.
In April 2013, FHWA sought clarification from stakeholders on

[[Page 23817]]

comments made during the listening sessions, specifically on measure
thresholds and target setting. In subsequent outreach, the American
Trucking Association, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, and AASHTO primarily reiterated previous comments that, in
developing the measure, FHWA should balance the public and private
perspective by providing flexibility to States for assessing freight
movement and developing a measure that would be useful to the freight
industry.
a. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Approaches
Freight stakeholders provided diverse perspectives on approaches
for assessing freight movement on the Interstate System including the
use of measures based on accessibility, delay, speed, safety, parking
availability, bottleneck identification, accident recovery, consistency
in oversize/overweight vehicle practices, tolling practices, hours-of-
service for truck operators, environmental impacts, and economic
impacts. A common theme was the importance of speed, reliability, and
travel time measures to freight system users because they can use this
information to plan freight movements.
b. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Challenges
Stakeholders provided input to DOT on the following perceived
measurement challenges:
Avoid Additional Burden for Agencies--Stakeholders
expressed concern regarding the cost and burden to the States of
freight data collection.
Lack of Control Over Performance Outcomes--Some
stakeholders noted concern about measuring and influencing external
factors, such as safety and economic impacts, where agencies have
little control over measure results.
Freight Measures are not the same as Broader System
Performance Measures--Some stakeholders expressed concern that broad
system-level measures of performance may not adequately represent
freight conditions.
c. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Methods
Stakeholders provided input to DOT on detailed aspects of measure
calculation methods. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within
the following categories:
Use of ``Posted Speed'' in Performance Measures--Some
stakeholders noted that posted speed is not a satisfactory baseline for
performance measures because of the use of embedded governors or speed
control devices companies install on trucks that limit speed and
variations in other external factors.
Reliability Thresholds--Stakeholders supported the use of
a reliability measure as it is universally used and understood among
transportation agencies and freight representatives. Reliability is
often measured in the form of an index such as a Planning Time Index or
Buffer Index, which both express a ratio of the worst travel time
compared to a free flow, normal day, or average travel time. Freight
stakeholders supported the numerator of a measurement index to be
defined as the 95th percentile because it represents the higher degree
of certainty for on-time arrival that freight stakeholders use in their
route planning and deliveries. Understanding the gap between normal
travel time and the 95th percentile will help to work toward
operational and capital strategies that will improve reliability.
Improving freight reliability is critical for freight stakeholders as
it lessens transportation costs associated with delay. Travel times
above a 95th percentile are usually attributed to unique and outlying
circumstances, such as a major accident or event that significantly
shuts down the roadway.
Measure Definitions--Stakeholders mentioned research by
the National Cooperation Highway Research Program (NCHRP), including
NCHRP Report 20-24 (37)G Technical Guidance for Deploying National
Level Performance Measures, that defines ``average speed'' as the
average speed of trucks over a 24-hour period and ``Reliability'' as
the ratio of the 95th percentile travel time to mean segment travel
time.
d. Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Measurement Principles
Stakeholders provided DOT with some general principles for
selecting measures. In general, stakeholders' suggestions fell within
the following categories:
Flexibility in Measurement Approaches--Some stakeholders
suggested that national requirements for performance measurement should
be flexible enough to allow for variation in regional and State
geographic characteristics and modal options.
National Measures May Not Match State DOT's Measures--
National-level performance measures may not be the same performance
measures State DOTs would use for planning and programming of
transportation projects and funding.
Measures Should Address Issues that State DOTs Control--
National-level performance measures should focus on areas and assets
where State DOTs have control.
Measures Should Build on Past Experience--Stakeholders
emphasized that the initial set of national-level performance measures
should build upon existing performance measures, management practices,
data sets, and reporting processes.
Measures Should Allow Improvement Over Time--Stakeholders
suggested that national-level measures should be forward thinking to
allow continued improvement over time.
Measures Should be Accompanied by Communication--
Stakeholders suggested that messaging the impact and meaning of the
national-level measures to the public and other audiences is vital to
the success of this initiative.
Flexibility in Target Setting--Stakeholders suggested that
there should be flexibility in target setting to allow States to
establish their own thresholds and targets.
Specificity, Simplicity, and other General
Characteristics--Stakeholders advocated for specific, measurable,
attainable, realistic, and timely national level performance measures.
Additionally, stakeholders advocated for simplicity, arguing that
measures should be simple and easy to understand.
3. Summary of Viewpoints Received for Subpart H: National Performance
Management Measures for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program--On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
Stakeholders provided DOT with input on data collection and
reporting related to on-road mobile source emissions. Suggestions
generally fell in the following categories:
Consistency with Current CMAQ Reporting Requirements and
Practices--Some stakeholders suggested that on-road mobile source
emissions measures should be consistent with current CMAQ program
reporting requirements and practices because quantification of CMAQ
project-related emissions reductions is already required under 23
U.S.C. 149. Stakeholders emphasized that any new performance data and
reporting should be consistent with and build upon current practice.
Avoid Imposing Burdens on Areas in Attainment--Some
stakeholders suggested new measures should not burden those parts of
the country with monitoring when none is required by the Clean Air Act
(CAA). It was noted that States without nonattainment areas are exempt
from the burden of developing sophisticated emissions

[[Page 23818]]

analysis tools and should not be required to do so going forward.
Geographic Applicability of Reporting--Some stakeholders
suggested that emissions reporting should be limited solely to large
urbanized areas where air quality planning efforts are focused and most
CMAQ funding is directed. Other stakeholders suggested reporting also
should include small urban areas.
Emissions Reporting Methods--Stakeholders suggested
various analytic and empirical methods for performance measurement:

--Consistency with EPA or California Emissions Models--Performance
measures should be consistent with emissions modeling tools developed
by EPA (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator--MOVES) \6\ and the California
Air Resources Board (EMFAC).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator--MOVES: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.
\7\ California Air Resources Board (EMFAC): http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Applicability of EPA-recommended Sustainable Transportation
Measures--The EPA's ``Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance
Measures'' is a helpful resource for developing on-road mobile source
emission reporting approaches.
--Applicability of Envision Tomorrow ArcGIS Tool--Envision Tomorrow,\8\
which is an extension for ArcGIS, could be a helpful tool for creating
land-use scenarios and assessing their environmental and other impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Envision Tomorrow: http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/about-envision-tomorrow/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Region-specific Fleet Information--MPOs may wish to consider using
region specific fleet mix information when calculating emissions.
Agency Emissions Data Capabilities--Some stakeholders
cautioned that State DOTs and MPOs vary in their capabilities to
collect, replicate, and report data on an annual basis.
Emissions Reporting should Include Greenhouse Gases--It
was suggested that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be tracked since GHGs
are correlated with fuel use and air toxins.

IV. Rulemaking Authority and Background

The cornerstone of MAP-21's Federal-aid highway program
transformation is the transition to a performance and outcome-based
program. As part of this transformation, and for the first time,
recipients of Federal-aid highway funds make transportation investments
to achieve individual targets that collectively make progress toward
national goals.
The MAP-21 provisions that focus on the achievement of performance
outcomes are contained in a number of sections of the law that are
administered by different DOT agencies. Consequently, these provisions
require an implementation approach that includes a number of separate
but related rulemakings, some from other modes within DOT. A summary of
the rulemakings related to this proposed rule is provided in this
section and additional information regarding all related implementation
actions is available on the FHWA Web site.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Summary of Related Rulemakings

The DOT's proposal regarding MAP-21's performance requirements will
be presented through several rulemakings. As a brief summary, these
rulemaking actions are listed below and should be referenced for a
complete picture of performance management implementation. The summary
below describes the main provisions that DOT plans to propose for each
rulemaking. The DOT has sought or plans to seek comment on each of
these rulemakings.
1. First Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule (FR Vol.81
No.50),\10\ Focused on Highway Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety
Improvement Program, 81 FR 13882 (Published on March 15, 2016)
(codified at 23 CFR part 490).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Propose and define national measures for the HSIP
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
targets
d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
e. Discuss how FHWA intends to implement MAP-21 performance-related
provisions.
2. Second Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule (RIN: 2125-
AF53),\11\ Focused on Highway Asset Conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ National Performance Management Measures Assessing Pavement
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge
Condition for the National Highway Performance Program, 80 FR 325
(proposed January 5, 2015) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 490).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Propose and define national measures for the condition of NHS
pavements and bridges
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid
highway program
c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
targets for NHPP
d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
e. Minimum standards for Interstate System pavement conditions.
3. Third Federal-Aid Highway Performance Measure Rule, Focused on
Assessing Performance of the NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate
System, and CMAQ (This NPRM)
a. Propose and define national measures for the remaining areas under
23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require measures and are not discussed under the
first and second measure rules, which includes the following: National
Performance Measures for Performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate National Highway System; CMAQ--Traffic Congestion; CMAQ--On-
Road Mobile Source Emissions; and Freight Movement on the Interstate
System
b. State and MPO target establishment requirements for the Federal-aid
highway program
c. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
d. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
targets for NHFP as well as the NHPP
e. Provide a summary of all three performance measures rules (Table 2
below lists all proposed measures and the entire Part 490 is in the
docket).

Table 2--Summary of Rulemakings To Implement the National Performance Management Measure Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed performance
Rulemaking 23 CFR Part 490 section measure Measure applicability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(1)............ Number of fatalities.... All public roads.
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(2)............ Rate of fatalities...... All public roads.
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(3)............ Number of serious All public roads.
injuries.

[[Page 23819]]

Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(4)............ Rate of serious injuries All public roads.
Safety PM Final Rule............. 490.207(a)(5)............ Number of non-motorized All public roads.
fatalities and non-
motorized serious
injuries.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)............... Percentage of pavements The Interstate System.
of the Interstate
System in Good
condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)(2)............ Percentage of pavements The Interstate System.
of the Interstate
System in in Poor
condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)(3)............ Percentage of pavements The non-Interstate NHS.
of the non-Interstate
NHS in Good condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.307(a)(4)............ Percentage of pavements The non-Interstate NHS.
of the non-Interstate
NHS in Poor condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.407(c)(1)............ Percentage of NHS NHS.
bridges classified as
in Good condition.
Infrastructure PM NPRM........... 490.407(c)(2)............ Percentage of NHS NHS.
bridges classified as
in Poor condition.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(a)(1)............ Percent of the The Interstate System.
Interstate System
providing for Reliable
Travel.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(a)(2)............ Percent of the non- The non-Interstate NHS.
Interstate NHS
providing for Reliable
Travel.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(b)(1)............ Percent of the The Interstate System in
Interstate System where urbanized areas with a
peak hour travel times population over 1
meet expectations. million.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.507(b)(2)............ Percent of the non- The non-Interstate NHS
Interstate NHS where in urbanized areas with
peak hour travel times a population over 1
meet expectations. million.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.607(a)............... Percent of the The Interstate System.
Interstate System
Mileage providing for
Reliable Truck Travel
Time.
System Performance PM NPRM....... 490.607(b)............... Percent of the The Interstate System.
Interstate System
Mileage Uncongested.
System Performance PM NPRM: CMAQ - 490.707.................. Annual Hours of The NHS in urbanized
traffic congestion. Excessive Delay Per areas with a population
Capita. over 1 million in
nonattainment or
maintenance for any of
the criteria pollutants
under the CMAQ program.
System Performance PM NPRM: CMAQ-- 490.807.................. Total tons of emissions Projects financed with
On-road mobile source emissions. reduced from CMAQ CMAQ funds in all
projects for applicable nonattainment and
criteria pollutants and maintenance areas for
precursors. one or more of the
criteria pollutants
under the CMAQ program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Update to the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN:
2125-AF52) \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 79 FR 31784 (proposed June 2,
2014) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 450).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Supporting national goals in the scope of the planning process
b. Coordination between States, MPOs, and public transportation
providers in selecting FHWA and public transportation performance
targets
c. Integration of elements of other performance-based plans into the
metropolitan and statewide planning process
d. Discussion in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Improvement
Programs section documenting how the programs are designed to achieve
targets
e. New performance reporting requirements in the Metropolitan
transportation plan.
5. Updates to the Highway Safety Improvement Program Regulations (FR
Vol.81 No.50) \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Highway Safety Improvement Program, 81 FR 13722 (published
on March 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Integration of performance measures and targets into the HSIP
b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) updates
c. Establishment of Model Inventory of Roadway Element Fundamental Data
Elements
d. HSIP reporting requirements.
6. Federal-Aid Highway Asset Management Plan Rule (RIN: 2125-AF57) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Asset Management Plan, 80 FR 9231 (proposed on February,
20, 2015)(to be codified at 23 CFR part 515).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Contents of asset management plan
b. Certification of process to develop plan
c. Transition period to develop plan
d. Minimum standards for pavement and bridge management systems.
7. Transit State of Good Repair Rule (RIN: 2132-AB20) \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The FTA published their Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) that incorporated items 7 and 8, on October 3,
2013. This ANPRM may be found at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Define state of good repair and establish measures
b. Transit asset management plan content and reporting requirements
c. Target establishment requirements for public transportation agencies
and MPOs.
8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132-AB20) \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Define transit safety standards
b. Transit safety plan content and reporting requirements.

[[Page 23820]]

9. Highway Safety Grant Programs Rule (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) Interim Final Rule \17\ (IFR), RIN: 2127-AL30,
2127-AL29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway
Grant Programs, Interim Final Rule, 78 FR 4986 (Jan. 23, 2013) (to
be codified at 23 CFR part 1200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Highway Safety Plan (HSP) contents, including establishment of
performance measures, targets, and reporting requirements
b. Review and approval of HSPs.

B. Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions

The FHWA organized the many performance-related provisions within
MAP-21 into six elements as defined below:
National Goals--Goals or program purpose established in
MAP-21 to focus the Federal-aid highway program on specific areas of
performance.
Measures--Establishment of measures by FHWA to assess
performance and condition in order to carry out performance-based
Federal-aid highway programs.
Targets--Establishment of targets by recipients of
Federal-aid highway funding for each of the measures to document
expectations of future performance.
Plans--Development of strategic and/or tactical plans by
recipients of Federal-aid highway funding to identify strategies and
investments that will address performance needs.
Reports--Development of reports by recipients of Federal
funding that would document progress toward the achievement of targets,
including the effectiveness of Federal-aid highway investments.
Accountability--Requirements developed by FHWA for
recipients of Federal funding to use to achieve or make significant
progress for targets established for performance.
The following provides a summary of MAP-21 provisions, as they
relate to the six elements listed above, including a reference to other
related rulemakings that should be considered for a more comprehensive
view of MAP-21 performance management implementation.
1. National Goals
The MAP-21 sec. 1203 establishes national goals to focus the
Federal-aid highway program. The following national goals are codified
at 23 U.S.C. 150(b):
Safety--To achieve a significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-
State owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.
Infrastructure condition--To maintain the highway
infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.
Congestion reduction--To achieve a significant reduction
in congestion on the NHS.
System reliability--To improve the efficiency of the
surface transportation system.
Freight movement and economic vitality--To improve the
national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities
to access national and international trade markets, and support
regional economic development.
Environmental sustainability--To enhance the performance
of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural
environment.
Reduced project delivery delays--To reduce project costs,
promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and
goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in
the project development and delivery process, including reducing
regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.
These national goals will largely be supported through the
metropolitan and statewide planning process, which is discussed under a
separate rulemaking (RIN: 2125-AF52) to update the Metropolitan and
Statewide Planning Regulations at 23 CFR part 450.
2. Measures
The MAP-21 requires the establishment of performance measures, in
consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders, that would
do the following:
Carry out the NHPP and assess the condition of pavements
on the Interstate System and the NHS (excluding the Interstate System),
the condition of bridges on the NHS, and performance of the Interstate
System and NHS (excluding the Interstate System);
Carry out the HSIP and assess serious injuries and
fatalities per VMT and the number of serious injuries and fatalities;
Carry out the CMAQ program and assess traffic congestion
and on-road mobile source emissions; and
Assess freight movement on the Interstate System.
The MAP-21 also requires the Secretary to establish the data
elements necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry
out a performance-based approach.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA proposed to issue three rulemakings in sequence to
implement the measures for the areas listed above. The first
rulemaking, issued as a NPRM on March 11, 2014 and published as a final
rule on March 15, 2016, focused on the performance measures, for the
purpose of carrying out the HSIP, to assess the number of serious
injuries and fatalities and serious injuries and fatalities per VMT.
The second NPRM focused on the measures to assess the condition of
pavements and bridges, and this third NPRM proposes measures for the
remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
The FHWA had proposed in the prior performance management NPRMs to
establish one common effective date for its three performance measure
final rules. While FHWA recognizes that one common effective date could
be easier for State DOTs and MPOs to implement, the process to develop
and implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures
required in MAP-21 has been lengthy. It is taking more than 3 years
since the enactment of MAP-21 to issue all three performance measure
NPRMs (the first performance management NPRM was published on March 11,
2014; the second NPRM was published on January 5, 2015). Rather than
waiting for all three rules to be final before implementing the MAP-21
performance measure requirements, FHWA has decided to phase in the
effective dates for the three final rules for these performance
measures so that each of the three performance measures rules will have
individual effective dates. This allows FHWA and State DOTs to begin
implementing some of the performance requirements much sooner than
waiting for the rulemaking process to be complete for all the rules.
The FHWA believes that individual implementation dates will also help
State DOTs transition to performance based planning.
On March 15, 2016, FHWA published a final rule (FR Vol. 81 No. 50)
covering the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking. With the staggered effective dates,
the Rule will be implemented in its entirety before the other two rules
are finalized.
Based on the timing of each individual rulemaking, FHWA would
provide additional guidance to stakeholders on how to best integrate
the new requirements into their existing processes. Under this
approach, FHWA expects that even though the implementation for each
rule would occur as each final rule is published, implementation for
the second rule would ultimately be aligned with the third rule through
a common

[[Page 23821]]

performance period. In the second performance management measure NPRM,
FHWA proposed that the first 4-year performance period would start on
January 1, 2016. However, FHWA proposes in this NPRM that the first
performance period would begin on January 1, 2018. This would align the
performance periods and reporting requirements for the proposed
measures in the second and third performance management measure NPRMs.
The FHWA has placed on the docket a timeline that illustrates how this
transition could be implemented. However, FHWA seeks comment from the
public on what an appropriate effective date(s) could be. Additional
information on the approach to establish performance measures for the
Federal-aid highway program can be found on FHWA's Transportation
Performance Management Web site.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/schedule.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum levels for the
condition of pavements for the Interstate System necessary to carry out
the NHPP, which was proposed in the second rulemaking.\20\ In addition,
MAP-21 also requires FHWA to establish minimum standards for State DOTs
to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement management
systems, which FHWA proposed in a separate rulemaking to establish an
Asset Management Plan (RIN 2125-AF57) for the NHS.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
\21\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate sections of MAP-21 require the establishment of additional
measures to assess public transportation performance.\22\ These
measures, which would be used to monitor the state of good repair of
transit facilities and to establish transit safety criteria, would be
addressed in two separate rulemakings led by Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regard to the Federal Lands Transportation Program, FHWA
anticipates working with eligible Federal entities to establish
performance measures.
3. Targets
The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets
reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program
\23\ and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these
measures where applicable.\24\ The first NPRM proposed the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety
performance targets, and was published as a final rule on March 15,
2016. The second NPRM and the third Federal-aid highway measure NPRM
discusses similar target establishment requirements for State DOTs and
MPOs as they relate to the measures discussed in the respective
proposed rules. Additionally, State DOTs and MPOs are required to
coordinate when selecting targets for the areas specified under 23
U.S.C. 150(c) in order to ensure consistency in the establishment of
targets, to the maximum extent practical.\25\ A separate rulemaking to
update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN 2125-
AF52) at 23 CFR 450 discusses this coordination requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
\24\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
\25\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2), 49 U.S.C.
5303(h)(2), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, MAP-21 requires State Highway Safety Offices to establish
targets for 11 core highway safety program outcome measures in the
State HSP, which NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final
Rule,\26\ and for recipients of public transportation Federal funding
and MPOs to establish state of good repair and safety targets.\27\
Discussions on these target establishment requirements are not included
in this NPRM. Rather, DOT will discuss those target establishment
requirements in the subsequent rulemakings to implement these
respective provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway
Safety Grant Programs, Interim final rule, 78 FR 4986 (January 23,
2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR part 1200). An eleventh core outcome
measure for bicycle fatalities was added after the publication of
the Interim Final Rule and is available at http://www.ghsa.org/html/resources/planning/index.html.
\27\ 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Plans
A number of provisions within MAP-21 require States and MPOs to
develop plans that provide strategic direction for addressing
performance needs. For the Federal-aid highway program these provisions
require: State DOTs to develop an Asset Management Plan; \28\ State
DOTs to update their SHSP; \29\ MPOs serving large TMAs in areas of
nonattainment or maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan; \30\
MPOs to include a System Performance Report in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan; \31\ and State DOTs and MPOs to include a
discussion, to the maximum extent practical, in their Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as to how the program would achieve the
performance targets they have established for the area.\32\ In
addition, State DOTs are encouraged to develop a State Freight Plan
\33\ to document planned activities and investments with respect to
freight. This rulemaking does not discuss any requirements to develop
or how to use these plans, with the exception of some discussion of the
CMAQ Performance Plan. Rather, a discussion on the development and use
of these plans will be included in the respective rulemakings or
guidance to implement these provisions. More information on the
required plans and the actions to implement the statutory provisions
related to plans can be found on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(2).
\29\ 23 U.S.C. 148(d).
\30\ 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
\31\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).
\32\ 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).
\33\ MAP-21, sec. 1118.
\34\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Reports
The MAP-21 sec. 1203 requires State DOTs to submit biennial reports
to FHWA on the condition and performance of the NHS, the effectiveness
of the investment strategy documented in a State DOT's asset management
plan for the NHS, progress in achieving targets, and ways in which a
State DOT is addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks.\35\ The FHWA
proposed in the first NPRM that safety progress be reported by State
DOTs through the HSIP annual report and not in the biennial report
required under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). This NPRM, under Subpart A, discusses
the 23 U.S.C. 150(e) biennial reporting requirement. The 23 U.S.C.
150(e) biennial reporting requirement would apply to all of the non-
safety measures for the Federal-aid highway program (i.e., the measures
proposed in this NPRM and in the second Performance Measure NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional progress reporting is required under the CMAQ program,
Metropolitan transportation planning, elements of the Public
Transportation Act of 2012, and the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety
Improvement Act of 2012. Also, State DOTs should include a system
performance report in their statewide transportation plan. These
reporting provisions are discussed in separate rulemakings and guidance
and are not discussed in this rulemaking, with the exception of some
reporting required by MPOs as part of the CMAQ program.

[[Page 23822]]

6. Accountability
Two provisions within MAP-21, specifically 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7)
under the NHPP and 23 U.S.C. 148(i) under the HSIP, and one provision
within FAST Act (Section 1116 codified at 23 U.S.C. 167(j)) under NHFP
require the State DOT to undertake actions if significant progress is
not made toward the achievement of State DOT targets established for
these respective programs. The FAST Act Section 1406 modified the NHPP
significant progress language and added language for the NHFP.
Accordingly, for NHPP and NHFP, if the State DOT has not achieved or
made significant progress toward the achievement of applicable targets
in a single FHWA biennial determination, then the State DOT must
document in its next biennial report the actions it will take to
achieve the targets.
Please note that FHWA proposes in section 490.109(e) that FHWA
would consider a State DOT has made significant progress toward the
achievement of an NHPP or NHFP target when either: (1) The actual
condition/performance level is equal to or better than the State DOT
established target; (2) or the actual condition/performance is better
than the State DOT identified baseline of condition/performance. So the
term ``achieved or made significant progress'' is synonymous with the
term ``made significant progress'' throughout this NPRM. This provision
is discussed in the second performance measure NPRM and in this NPRM.
For the HSIP, if the State DOT does not achieve or make significant
progress for its HSIP safety targets, then the State DOT must dedicate
a specified amount of obligation limitation to safety projects and
prepare an annual implementation plan.\36\ The first performance
measure NPRM discussed this provision, and it is codified in the final
rule that covers the safety-related elements of the Federal-aid Highway
Performance Measures Rulemaking published on March 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ 23 U.S.C. 148(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, MAP-21 requires that each State DOT maintain a minimum
condition level for Interstate System pavement and NHS bridge
conditions. If a State DOT falls below either standard, then the State
DOT must spend a specified portion of its funds for that purpose until
the minimum standard is exceeded.\37\ This provision was discussed in
the second performance measure NPRM, which proposed pavement and bridge
performance measures for the NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ 23 U.S.C. 119(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct impact that
State DOTs can have on performance outcomes within the State and that
State DOTs need to consider this uncertainty in their establishment of
targets. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to consult with relevant
entities (e.g., MPOs, local transportation agencies, Federal Land
Management Agencies, tribal governments) as State DOTs establish
targets, so they can better identify and consider factors outside of
their direct control that could impact future condition/performance.
Further, MAP-21 includes special safety rules to require each State
DOT to maintain or improve safety performance on high risk rural roads
and for older drivers and pedestrians.\38\ If the State DOT does not
meet these special rules, which contain minimum performance standards,
then it must dedicate a portion of HSIP funding (in the case of the
high risk rural road special rule) or document in their SHSP actions it
intends to take to improve performance (in the case of the older driver
and pedestrian special rule). Guidance on how FHWA will administer
these two special rules is provided on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ 23 U.S.C. 148(g).
\39\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehrrr.cfm and
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guideolder.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements

The FHWA will implement the performance requirements within section
1203 of MAP-21 in a manner that results in a transformation of the
Federal-aid highway program so that the program focuses on national
goals, provides for a greater level of accountability and transparency,
and provides a means for the most efficient investment of Federal
transportation funds. In this regard, FHWA plans to implement these new
requirements in a manner that will provide Federal-aid highway fund
recipients the greatest opportunity to fully embrace a performance-
based approach to transportation investment decisionmaking that does
not hinder performance improvement. In this regard, FHWA carefully
considered the following principles in the development of proposed
regulations for national performance measures under 23 U.S.C. 150(c):
Provide for a National Focus--focus the performance
requirements on outcomes that can be reported at a national level.
Minimize the Number of Measures--identify only the most
necessary measures that will be required for target establishment and
progress reporting. Limit the number of measures to one or no more than
two per area specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
Ensure for Consistency--provide a sufficient level of
consistency, nationally, in the establishment of measures, the process
to establish targets and report expectations, and the approach to
assess progress so that transportation performance can be presented in
a credible manner at the national level.
Phase in Requirements--allow for sufficient time to comply
with new requirements and consider approaches to phase in new
approaches to measuring, target establishment, and reporting
performance.
Increase Accountability and Transparency--consider an
approach that would provide the public and decisionmakers a better
understanding of Federal transportation investment returns and needs.
Consider Risk--recognize that risks in the target
establishment process are inherent and that many factors, outside the
control of the entity required to establish the targets, can impact
performance.
Understand that Priorities Differ--recognize that targets
need to be established across a wide range of performance areas and
that performance trade-offs would need to be made to establish
priorities, which would be influenced by local and regional needs.
Recognize Fiscal Constraints--provide for an approach that
encourages the optimal investment of Federal funds to maximize
performance but recognize that, when operating with scarce resources,
performance cannot always be improved.
Provide for Flexibility--recognize that the MAP-21
requirements are the first steps that will transform the Federal-aid
highway program to a performance-based program and that State DOTs,
MPOs, and other stakeholders will be learning a great deal as
implementation occurs.
The FHWA considered these principles in this and previous NPRMs and
encourages comments on the extent to which the approach to performance
measures set forth in this NPRM supports the principles discussed
above.

Federal Technical Assistance

The FHWA is committed to providing stewardship to State DOTs and
MPOs assisting them as they take steps to

[[Page 23823]]

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

V. Performance Management Measure Analysis

This section of the NPRM summarizes the process FHWA used to
consider potential performance measures, including alternate data
sources and potential measures. The FHWA's analysis was based on
consideration of viewpoints from several sources including:
Knowledge of technical experts within DOT and FHWA on the
current state of practice for measuring system performance, freight
movement, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions;
Information provided by external stakeholders received
directly or captured as part of organized stakeholder listening
sessions;
Information provided by external stakeholders received
indirectly through informal contact such as telephone calls, email, or
letters; and
Measures that have been recommended and documented in
nationally recognized reports such as the assessment of measurement
readiness documented in the 2011 final report for NCHRP Project 20-
24(37)G, ``Technical Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance
Measurements.''
Compared with the two previous NPRMs in this series, the
measurement areas covered by this NPRM are more varied from State to
State; consequently, stakeholders' consensus about approaches for
measuring performance is inconsistent. To aid its analysis of alternate
measurement options for this NPRM specifically, FHWA relied on an
expanded set of qualitative criteria (which supplement the assessment
factors/criteria utilized in the other performance measure NPRMs) to
ensure that a set of measures established through this rulemaking would
allow for:
A national performance story to be communicated in a
credible and reliable manner;
State DOTs and MPOs to consider their unique expectations
of desirable performance;
The potential for use across multiple surface
transportation modes;
One core set of data to be used to assess system
performance, traffic congestion, and freight movement; and
The potential utilization of new data as technology
progresses.
Section V includes three sub-sections, which describe FHWA's
assessment of measures using the expanded set of criteria as well as
the assessment factors and criteria used in the two previous
performance measure NPRMs:
Sub-Section A--Analysis and assessment of potential data
sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring
system performance and traffic congestion;
Sub-Section B--Analysis and assessment of potential data
sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring
freight movement, and
Sub-Section C--Analysis and assessment of potential data
sources, measurement methodologies, and proposed measures for measuring
on-road mobile source emissions.
Also, each sub-section below describes FHWA's evaluation of the
measures using a common methodology to identify gaps that could impact
successful implementation of proposed performance measures.

A. Selection of Measures for Subparts E and G--System Performance and
Traffic Congestion

This sub-section describes FHWA's analysis of data types, sources,
and measurement methods to support potential measures. We also include
a brief history of, and lessons learned from, FHWA's research on
congestion and reliability performance measures. Lastly, this sub-
section describes FHWA's assessment of proposed measures including: (1)
Percentage of system providing for reliable travel times; (2)
percentage of system providing where peak hour travel times meet
expectations; and (3) annual excessive delay per capita.
System Performance and Traffic Congestion Data Types and Sources
Considered by FHWA
The FHWA considered several potential data sources for use in
measuring system performance and traffic congestion including travel
speed and time data, travel volume data, vehicle throughput data, and
other trip information on data.
Travel Speed or Travel Time Data--Many State DOTs, MPOs, local
agencies, and travel corridor partnerships make use of vehicle speed
and travel time data sets to manage system operations or report
performance. The FHWA recognizes that travel time or speed does not
provide information on the purpose of trip, trip origin and
destination, transportation mode, or occupancy rates. However, FHWA has
been working to advance the quality of this data. One way FHWA has done
this is by acquiring and making available to State and local
governments a national travel time data set, the NPMRDS, to support
national, State, and local system performance and congestion reporting,
research and analysis needs. At this time, FHWA finds that the NPMRDS
is the only national travel speed and travel time data source available
to State DOTs and MPOs that could reliably support all the performance
reporting needs of this rulemaking.
Traffic Volume Data--All State DOTs report annual average daily
traffic (AADT) for all Federal-aid eligible roadways to FHWA's HPMS
database. All State DOTs also voluntarily provide monthly counts of
AADT to FHWA, which FHWA uses to produce monthly national traffic
volume trend information.\40\ The FHWA believes, however, that traffic
volume data offers an incomplete picture of either system performance
or traffic congestion because it lacks information about traffic volume
by specific times of the day, and because volume counts are based on
information collected at a limited number of locations. As these
weaknesses do affect the accuracy or value of volume counts, FHWA
concluded that volume data would be a poor choice as the sole data
source for measuring system performance or traffic congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ FHWA Traffic Volume Trends: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Traffic Throughput Data--Some researchers and practitioners have
used data on the total number of vehicles or persons passing through a
specific

[[Page 23824]]

location during a defined time period to measure system performance
and/or traffic congestion. The FHWA believes that performance
throughput data is not widely available at a national level nor is it
routinely measured on a system-wide basis in States. However, we seek
comment on the use and availability of performance throughput data.
To measure throughput on the NHS would require near constant
vehicle count/volume data that does not exist today except for a very
limited number of locations (usually those locations where HPMS
requires reporting of volume). Person count data, which would be used
for measuring person throughput, is typically based on vehicle
occupancy which is typically reported as an average based on surveys
(including the U.S. Census) or as a set multiplier to vehicles (e.g.,
1.1 occupants per vehicle), although limited counts at single locations
on roadways are often undertaken. Classification of vehicles data (for
assigning person trips) is also available in a very limited number of
locations and would be required for measuring the number of people in
buses or vans, for example.
The FHWA concludes that an almost complete lack of data
availability makes throughput data impractical as a measure of
performance. The FHWA recognizes, however, that improvements in traffic
data collection technologies could offer the potential to measure
throughput on a system-wide basis in the future.
Other/Trip Information--The FHWA also considered various
alternative data types related to trip characteristics that offer
insights on system performance and traffic congestion such as typical
travel times, trip purpose, and trip origin and destination
information. This data is generally collected using surveys, such as
the American Community Survey, or regional travel surveys produced by
MPOs that sample a statistically representative portion of all
travelers. Although surveys of this kind can provide valuable
information to help plan and manage transportation demand, FHWA
believes the information captured could not easily be used to support a
national performance measure because these surveys are administered
infrequently and are not referenced to specific locations.
A summary of FHWA's analysis of the viability of various data types
to support national measures to assess system performance and traffic
congestion is provided in Table 3 below:

Table 3--Summary Assessment of Data Types for Use in Support of National Measures To Assess System Performance and Traffic Congestion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National data source Considered for the proposed
Information source available? Update frequency Granularity rule?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed or Travel Time.............. Yes........................... Monthly....................... Roadway segment...... Yes.
Traffic Volume.................... Yes........................... Annual........................ Roadway segment...... Yes.
Throughput........................ No............................ Varies........................ Specific Corridors... No.
Trip Information.................. Yes........................... Annual........................ Regional............. No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the discussion in this section, FHWA considered use of
travel time, speed, or traffic volume data to support measures for
system performance and traffic congestion.
Request for comments: FHWA recognizes limitations in the
availability of data could be resolved in the future with technology
advancement. The FHWA seeks comments on potential data sources and
technologies related to system performance and traffic congestion
measures, including:
1. Trip Information Data: The FHWA is seeking comments on
approaches for gathering travel, trip origin and destination,
transportation mode, or occupancy rates information on a routine and
system-wide basis.
2. Throughput Data: The FHWA is seeking comment on approaches for
gathering throughput data for traffic congestion that would capture the
total number of travelers passing through segments that make up a full
system on a regular basis.
3. Survey Data: The FHWA recognizes that survey data available
today offers only limited application to the development of performance
measures; technologies available to capture large volumes of data on
the movement of people could provide the potential to capture trip-
related information that could be useful in managing transportation
performance. The FHWA is seeking comment on approaches that can be used
to capture trip-related information on a more routine and system-wide
basis.
System Performance and Traffic Congestion Measures Considered by FHWA
The FHWA identified and considered a variety of approaches to
express travel time, speed, or traffic volume data as measures of
system performance or traffic congestion including travel delay, a
travel time index, travel time, travel time reliability, or Level of
Service. A summary of how these suggestions and approaches were
considered by FHWA is provided below:
Travel Delay-Based Measure--Delay is typically a corridor or
system-level indicator of additional travel time or slower travel speed
when compared to the desired time or the desired speed of travel; it is
easily understood by transportation users and is meaningful, expressed
in terms of lost time, for all modes of surface transportation. The
FHWA finds that many operating agencies use delay metrics to report on
and manage system performance; however, the definition of delay varies
among agencies. The FHWA acknowledges that delay measures do not
capture system performance attributes in terms of shorter trips or
better access to destinations and modal options, which may occur at the
expense of greater delay. For example, transportation priorities in a
region may focus on land use decisionmaking that concentrates
populations, resulting in reduced speeds but improving access to
destinations and modal options. The FHWA considered these concerns in
the design of measures based on delay.
Travel Time Index Measure--A travel time index compares actual
travel time for a road segment (typically during the peak period)
relative to a reference travel time. The FHWA finds that travel time
indices are widely used to report on and manage system performance and
traffic congestion. As with delay metrics, FHWA acknowledges that
travel time indices do not capture system attributes in terms of
shorter trips or better access to destinations and mode options, which
may occur at the expense of greater delay. Recognizing that a free-flow
speed-based reference travel time may not support regional and local
planning policies, FHWA believes it is appropriate for individual State
DOTs and/or MPOs to establish reference travel times that support local
priorities for certain types of measures.

[[Page 23825]]

The FHWA believes that the use of an index provides an effective means
to normalize travel times so that the performance can be evaluated
across different roadway segments and used to calculate a national
performance measure.
Travel Time-Based Measure--A measure calculated using a travel
time-based metric would report actual travel times for origin-
destination pairs rather than comparing actual travel time to a
reference travel time. The FHWA believes that use of travel time by
itself as a metric or measure would be difficult for the public to
understand without also knowing the associated origin-destination
information. The FHWA believes that the use of an index that compares
actual travel time to expected travel time is more meaningful to the
public.
Travel Time or Speed Reliability Measure--This measure would
compare the longest travel time or slowest speed that occurs during a
specified time frame to a reference travel time or speed for a
transportation facility. A reliability measure is an indication of the
extra time a traveler must add to their trip in order to have a high
degree of certainty that they will arrive at their destination on time.
The FHWA finds that travel time reliability measures are widely used to
report on and manage system performance. The FHWA also notes two
important refinements that strengthen travel time reliability measures:
(1) Some agencies exclude the top 20 percent of longest travel times
throughout the year because these travel times typically are due to
extreme events that are beyond an agency's control and should not be
considered in the assessment of overall system performance; and (2) The
reference travel time used in a reliability measure often reflects
travel time associated with typical or average travel speeds rather
than the time associated with free flow travel speeds.
Level of Service-Based Measure--Some transportation agencies assess
the performance of their highways by comparing existing traffic volume
to the capacity for which those highways are designed in a measure that
is typically referred to as the Level of Service. This approach assumes
that as traffic volume reaches the capacity of the system, performance
is reduced. However, FHWA believes that an agency can often use
operations strategies such as ramp metering or High Occupancy Vehicle
lanes to avoid or reduce performance impacts as traffic volume
approaches capacity. The FHWA also believes that data on traffic volume
information is not sufficiently available on all segments of roadways
at all times of the day to use as the only basis for the development of
national performance measures.
Impact-Based Measures--Some transportation agencies and planning
organizations use measures to report the estimated impacts of increased
travel times or reduced travel speeds such as wasted fuel, the value of
lost time, or commuter stress levels. The FHWA finds, however, that the
information to support such measures is not directly measurable,
thereby requiring the use of algorithms that would be difficult to
develop in a reliable manner.
A summary of FHWA's analysis of the different approaches for
expressing travel time, travel speed, and/or traffic volume considered
as part of its efforts to develop measures to assess system performance
and traffic congestion is provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4--Summary of Assessment of Approaches for Expressing Travel Time, Travel Speed, and Traffic Volume
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of stakeholder Considered for the proposed
Approach interest rule? Considerations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delay........................... Mixed....................... Yes.........................
Travel Time as an Index......... Low......................... Yes......................... Use of an agency
defined
threshold.
Travel Time..................... Mixed....................... No..........................
Travel Time Speed Reliability... High........................ Yes......................... Consider non-
recurring
congestion tied
to extreme
events.
Level of Service................ Low......................... No..........................
Impacts......................... Very Low.................... No..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FHWA Congestion and Reliability Performance Measure Research and
Analysis
The FHWA has been researching performance measures for congestion,
mobility, and reliability for over 10 years. The Urban Congestion
Report \41\ and Freight Performance Measurement (FPM) \42\ have focused
on producing performance measures from a variety of sources over the
years. Initially, FHWA's research calculated travel times from speed
data derived from sensors in or along the roadway, including loop
detectors, side-fired radar detectors, video detection, etc. The FHWA
research then developed a variety of measures that could be used for
trend analysis, such as the Planning Time Index (95th percentile travel
time versus free flow travel time) that focuses on the variability (or
reliability) of travel day to day, and hours of congestion (hours of
day where travel on freeways is under 45 mph), among other measures.
The measures were aggregated from roadway sections up to urbanized
area-wide measure as well as national measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/ucr/ ucr/.
\42\ http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/perform_meas/#fhwa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two issues identified through this research are important to
understanding the ultimate approach FHWA proposes for the MAP-21
performance measures related to congestion and system reliability.
First, the advent of readily available vehicle-based probe travel time
data in recent years has led to a transformation of traveler
information and performance measure development. Vehicle-based probe
travel time data is derived from in-vehicle, GPS-based probes,
including track fleet management devices, navigation units, and cell
phones that report location information and time. The travel times are
either derived directly from speed data provided or calculated based on
a probe's trip progress (deriving speeds from the amount of time taken
to travel between two locations and the distance between the two
locations). Because data on the entire NHS is available from actual
measurements tied to a date, time, and location on specific roadway
segments, congestion performance measurement can be much more accurate,
widespread, and detailed. This data also provides the potential to
undertake before/after evaluations of transportation projects and
strategies.
Since the passage of MAP-21, the FHWA acquired vehicle-based probe
travel time data from a private vendor

[[Page 23826]]

for the entire NHS, and acquired the rights for State DOTs and MPOs to
also use the data. The data set, the NPMRDS, delivers travel time data,
averaged every 5 minutes of every day of the year every month. Travel
times are reported for freight-only and for all traffic, which includes
all probe data available (passenger, freight, fleet, taxis, etc.).
The second issue FHWA identified is that aggregating measures up to
a national level provides important national trend information but has
limited direct correlation to how money is being spent on road
improvements that may actually affect changes in the measure. The FHWA
has been advocating the use of performance measures at a local level as
best practice in recent years. Operating and planning agencies can
better understand how a project affects performance on a section of
roadway or how a facility or corridor operates during peak periods or
weather events using local performance measures, rather than
aggregating measure up to a regional, State, or national level.
Applicability of Measures
The FHWA analysis of measures included applicability of measures to
the transportation network or geographic area. Section 1203 of MAP-21
directed FHWA to establish measures for States to use to assess the
performance of the Interstate System and the non-Interstate NHS. For
assessing performance of the non-Interstate NHS, FHWA believes it is
important that at least one of the selected measures relate to the
entire NHS. Since system reliability is identified as one of the
National Goals (23 U.S.C. 150(b)(4)), FHWA decided it was appropriate
to establish a reliability-based measure for the entire NHS.
Accordingly, the NHPP Performance of the System reliability measure is
calculated for the entire NHS.
Another important component of System Performance is congestion,
and typically, but not exclusively, the worst congestion occurs on
high-volume roads in urbanized areas. The FHWA thought it was important
to capture this type of congestion in a measure so that urbanized areas
would be able to monitor and address congestion issues. The Peak Hour
Travel Time measure was developed to provide this information, limiting
the reporting to the largest urbanized areas (over 1,000,000 in
population). In selecting this measure, FHWA considered the national
goal of congestion reduction, which asks to achieve a significant
reduction in congestion on the NHS. 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(3). The FHWA
believes the Peak Hour Travel Time measure is consistent with this
national goal. The Peak Hour Travel Time measure also gives agencies in
the affected urbanized areas the ability to relate their measure to
their NHS roadway operational and investment policies by allowing them
to set the ``Desired Peak Period Travel Time'' on their NHS roadways.
Consistent with the purpose of the CMAQ program to fund
transportation projects and programs that will contribute to attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS in areas designated as nonattainment and
maintenance, FHWA believes that the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measure
should apply to nonattainment and maintenance areas and relate to the
goals of the CMAQ Program (to improve air quality and relieve
congestion). To reduce the burden on some States DOTs and MPOs and to
focus on areas where typically the worst congestion occurs, like the
System Performance congestion measure, FHWA chose to limit this measure
to urbanized areas over 1,000,000 in population as well, since those
agencies typically have more capability and experience in assessing
traffic congestion. In addition, these areas are the same areas where
MPOs will need to report on the CMAQ measures as part of a performance
plan under 23 U.S.C. 149(l). Similar to the System Performance
congestion measure, FHWA also chose a measure that would be consistent
with the national goal of congestion reduction.
Based on a thorough review of data, measure definitions,
calculation methods, applicability, and national goals, FHWA identified
three potential measures to assess system performance and traffic
congestion that deserved further consideration including: Percentage of
system providing for reliable travel times; percentage of system where
peak hour travel times meet expectations; and annual excessive delay
per capita.
The FHWA analyzed these proposed measures for system performance
and traffic congestion in tandem as part of this rulemaking so they
would provide (1) a complete national picture of system reliability;
(2) a focus on urbanized area peak hour congestion; and (3) a focus on
the worst traffic delays in air quality nonattainment areas and
maintenance areas. In addition, FHWA ensured that the proposed measures
(and related metrics) were defined so that their methodologies could be
applicable at the same segment, corridor, facility, or other level,
resulting in fine grain performance information suitable for supporting
the investment decisionmaking process at the statewide, metropolitan,
and local levels. Finally, FHWA focused on using as much actual,
observed data as is available to develop these measures. Together,
these three measures provide a comprehensive picture of system
performance, reliability and traffic congestion nationwide, both on the
entire NHS and with a focus on areas that typically have the worst
congestion.
Assessment of Proposed Measures for Subparts E and G (System
Performance and Traffic Congestion)
The FHWA used a common methodology of 12 criteria to assess the
appropriateness of each measure for national use and the readiness to
implement the performance measure accurately and reliably.

(A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive performance
outcomes?
(A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership with key
stakeholders?
(A3) Can the measure accommodate changes in the future?
(A4) Can the measure be used to support investment decisions,
policy making, and target establishment?
(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance trends?
(A6) Is collection, storage, and reporting of measure data
feasible?
(B1) Timeliness
(B2) Consistency
(B3) Completeness
(B4) Accuracy
(B5) Accessibility
(B6) Data Integration

Each performance measure, as used in current practice, was assessed
against the 12 criteria using the following three ratings for each
criterion.

Green Rating--Criterion is fully met for the candidate measure
Yellow Rating--Criterion is partially met for the candidate
measure and work is underway to fully meet it the criterion
Red Rating--Criterion is not fully met or no work is underway
or planned that would allow the criterion to be met

The FHWA used the results of this assessment to identify gaps that
FHWA could address through this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness
of the measures in this NPRM. The rulemaking docket contains a
description of the methodology used for this assessment. Table 5 below
summarizes the results of the assessment for the proposed performance
management measures for system performance and traffic congestion.

[[Page 23827]]

Table 5--Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures for System Performance and Traffic Congestion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Percentage of
system providing system where peak Annual hours of
Assessment factor for reliable hour travel times excessive delay
travel meet expectations per capita
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A1) Is the measure focused on comprehensive G G Y
performance outcomes?..............................
(A2) Has the measure been developed in partnership Y Y Y
with key stakeholders?.............................
(A3) Is the measure maintainable to accommodate G G G
changes?...........................................
(A4) Can the measure be used to support investment G G G
decisions, policy making and target establishment?.
(A5) Can the measures be used to analyze performance G G G
trends?............................................
(A6) Has the feasibility and practicality to G G G
collect, store, and report data in support of the
measures been considered?..........................
(B1) Timeliness..................................... G G G
(B2) Consistency.................................... G G G
(B3) Completeness................................... Y Y Y
(B4) Accuracy....................................... G G G
(B5) Accessibility.................................. G G G
(B6) Data Integration............................... G G G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The factors that were assessed at a green level for the proposed
measures were considered by FHWA in its choice of approach for system
performance and traffic congestion measures. The FHWA also considered
the factor assessed at yellow (B3--completeness) for all three measures
as probe data is available on most of the NHS, but there are still some
times of day and locations where data is not consistently available via
the NPMRDS data set that FHWA is requiring for use for these measures.
The FHWA believes that over time, as more probe data sources are added
to the data set, that missing travel times will be minimized.
The FHWA proposal outlined in this NPRM attempts to address some of
the gaps that exist today for the lower rated factors so that, when the
new requirements are implemented, the measures result in an improved
assessment rating, thereby better supporting national programs. In
particular, FHWA factored the following considerations in its decision:
Criterion A1--recognize that the Traffic Congestion
measure (Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita) should ideally
reflect the movement of all travelers and the performance of all modes.
As proposed, the measure may not capture modal options or better
accessibility. The FHWA is seeking comment on methods that can be used
reliably to achieve this outcome.
Criterion A2--recognize that a national measure is not in
place for either system performance or traffic congestion and no
national pilot studies have been conducted. However, FHWA and many
State DOTs and MPOs have developed their own system performance/
congestion measures and these were considered in developing the
national measures.

The specifics of these proposals are described in the Section-by-
Section portion of this proposed rule.

B. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart F--Freight Movement on
the Interstate System

This sub-section describes the FHWA's analysis of a range of data
types and sources and measurement methods to support potential freight
movement-related measures and describes FHWA's assessment of two
proposed measures including: (1) Percent of Interstate System mileage
meeting the goal for reliability; and (2) percent of Interstate System
mileage considered uncongested (by speed). The FHWA assessed both these
proposed measures in terms of appropriateness as national measures and
readiness for implementation.
The FHWA selected reliability and average speed measures because
they offered the best understanding of freight performance at the
national level and had the widest support from stakeholders. The FHWA
seeks to refine the use of freight-related measures in the future and
broaden measures and data sources that can better inform future policy,
programming, and investment decisions and provide a multimodal
consideration of freight flow.
Freight Movement Data Types and Sources Considered by FHWA
The FHWA recognizes that the efficient movement of freight is
important to the Nation's economy. Efficiency is hindered by slow
speeds and unreliable travel times caused by congested highways. For
the freight industry, slow and unreliable travel results in diminished
productivity by reducing the efficiency of operations, increasing costs
of goods, increasing fuel costs, reducing drivers' available hours for
service, and reducing equipment productivity. Reducing highway
congestion could produce important benefits for the freight industry
and contribute to our Nation's growing economy. Solutions must address
the long-term and short-term freight needs and depend on participation
from both the public and private sectors to fully understand
performance and develop strategic solutions.
Historically, congestion data collection efforts focused
exclusively on commuting in urbanized areas. To improve availability of
freight data, FHWA launched the FPM program in 2002. This program
collects truck travel-time data on major freight-significant corridors,
intercity pairs along those corridors, and major U.S. international
land-border crossings. Data are collected from embedded probe
technology in approximately 600,000 trucks and are used to provide a
range of performance measures including but not limited to travel
times, speeds, congestion points, incident analysis, and diversions.
Although FPM itself is not a system improvement, it is a mechanism for
collecting and analyzing data to assist national, State, regional, and
local transportation agencies in better measuring and managing highway
transportation system performance. The availability of FPM data has the
potential to inform future investment decisions that produce benefits
of regional and national significance.

[[Page 23828]]

The FPM program complements other efforts by FHWA to monitor and
measure urban congestion. Combining FPM data with urban congestion data
such as HPMS data, economic data from the Freight Analysis Framework,
and other relevant data provides a more complete picture of surface
transportation system performance and identifies areas where
performance could be improved. To provide a comprehensive understanding
of freight performance in concert with passenger and total traffic
congestion and performance, FHWA procured the NPMRDS in 2013, which
provides travel times for all traffic, passenger, and freight with an
archive of data beginning in October 2011. The FPM probe data is the
freight data that is included in the NPMRDS travel time data. States
and MPOs are currently using this data set to develop performance
measures and support freight planning and other transportation plans.
This data set allows a more comprehensive understanding of congestion
for all types of traffic through the calculation of speed, reliability,
and travel time on corridors with significant freight movement. As
mentioned above, there is widespread support among stakeholders for
these types of measures (e.g., speed, reliability, travel time).
However, FHWA recognizes that a true picture of freight performance
must reflect the multimultimodal nature of freight. In addition to
efforts to implement the performance requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150,
FHWA expects to continue work currently underway with other modes and
public and private freight stakeholders to develop new data
opportunities and create additional measures to provide a multimodal
and economic assessment of freight. These efforts would further an
understanding of freight performance that will support other freight-
related provisions within MAP-21 such as freight planning. This work,
in addition to FHWA's current efforts for the FPM program, will provide
a clearer picture of the total supply chain and goods movement system
so that improvements can be even more precisely targeted.
Freight Movement Measures Considered by FHWA
The FHWA focused its evaluation of measures for 23 U.S.C. 150 for
freight movement on Interstate on its significant research and
leadership in FPM development through the FPM program, and stakeholder
input. The FHWA recognizes that freight performance is best depicted by
a series of measures to provide a comprehensive picture of freight
movement. Stakeholders discussed multimodal measures and suites of
measures to show performance in all aspects of freight movement. As the
measures required for this rulemaking are only for freight movement on
the Interstate System, FHWA is addressing stakeholder requests for
multimodal and multiarea measures through other MAP-21 freight
requirements such as freight planning and the development of a Freight
Conditions and Performance Report (see MAP-21, Section 1115). An
additional factor in FHWA's assessment was the varying practices for
FPM among stakeholders, including State DOTs and MPOs, resulting in a
lack of national consistency on data and measurement. After considering
the ongoing research in this area and stakeholder support for FHWA's
FPM efforts, FHWA believes that its proposed use of a nationally
consistent data set is the most consistent, efficient, and reliable
means of understanding Interstate freight movement at the local, State,
and national levels.
Assessment of Proposed Measures for Subpart F (Freight Movement)
The FHWA identified two proposed measures: (1) Percent of
Interstate System mileage meeting the goal for reliability; and (2)
percent of Interstate System mileage considered uncongested (by speed).
The two measures proposed by FHWA were evaluated, based on existing
state-of-practice, using the assessment process described in Section
V.A of this section. Table 6 includes a summary of this assessment.

Table 6--Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures Relating to
Freight Movement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Percent of
interstate system interstate system
Assessment factor mileage meeting mileage
goal for uncongested (by
reliability speed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A1) Is the measure focused on G G
comprehensive performance
outcomes?......................
(A2) Has the measure been G G
developed in partnership with
key stakeholders?..............
(A3) Is the measure maintainable G G
to accommodate changes?........
(A4) Can the measure is used to G G
support investment decisions,
policy making and target
establishment?.................
(A5) Can the measures be used to G G
analyze performance trends?....
(A6) Has the feasibility and G G
practicality to collect, store,
and report data in support of
the measures been considered?..
(B1) Timeliness................. G G
(B2) Consistency................ G G
(B3) Completeness............... Y Y
(B4) Accuracy................... G G
(B5) Accessibility.............. G G
(B6) Data Integration........... G G
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.

The measures proposed by FHWA were considered against the criteria
presented in Table 6. For all of the assessment factors except
completeness, FHWA ranked these measures as ``green.'' The FHWA
considered the measures against all of the criteria and weighed public
and private stakeholder input along with FHWA's experience in applying
the measures. These measures were determined to be the two measures
that most appropriately met all of the assessment factors and provide a
comprehensive assessment of performance for freight so that public and
private decisionmakers can identify policy and operational improvements
for goods movement. The FHWA considered the measures to be ``yellow''
for completeness only because they are proposed to rely on data from
the NPMRDS, which has limited missing data that could impact the
ability to conduct a complete assessment of

[[Page 23829]]

freight movement on the Interstate. While a robust data set, the NPMRDS
does exhibit limitations, especially with missing travel time data when
no probe passes a location in a 5-minute period (referred to as 5-
minute bins). For the freight data, the NPMRDS uses a sample of
approximately 600,000 trucks. The probes that are used to derive travel
times in the NPMRDS generally provide national coverage. However, there
are some areas of the Nation where there are fewer trucks or no truck
activity reported. When this occurs, these bins would not be reported
in the NPMRDS, and are missing from the dataset. The FHWA's internal
assessment has demonstrated that, even with the missing data, the
measures could still be calculated because the measures are based on
annual averages. There are not enough missing 5 minute bins to make
calculating the measure impossible. The FHWA recognizes the need to
improve the completeness of the data and continues to work to improve
this data set and include more trucks. It is expected that the truck
sample will grow exponentially in coming years and over time the
addition of more probe sources will reduce missing travel times.

C. Selection of Proposed Measures for Subpart H--On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions

The following section includes an overview of the factors FHWA
considered in the selection of a proposed measure for the assessment of
on-road mobile source emissions as required to administer the CMAQ
program under 23 U.S.C. 149. (The previous section discusses proposed
measures for Traffic Congestion to carry out the CMAQ program.) The
FHWA wants the measure established through this rulemaking to:
Meet CMAQ program performance requirements in 23 U.S.C.
149 and 150.
Be mindful of existing emissions reduction reporting
practices and data sets, thereby minimizing any additional burden on
State DOTs and MPOs.
Apply to CMAQ-funded projects instead of focusing on one
project type (e.g., highways or transit).
Apply to CMAQ-funded projects only in areas designated as
nonattainment and maintenance for pollutants applicable to the CMAQ
program (ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate
matter (PM)) versus all areas.
The FHWA received viewpoints on suggested measures as discussed
above in Section III, Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and
Outreach. In addition, FHWA considered measures in use today to report
on-road mobile source emissions reduction estimates. After
consideration, FHWA identified four possible measures for preliminary
consideration:
(1) Emission Reductions by Pollutant--A measure of the estimated
emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects within a nonattainment or
maintenance area. The emissions reductions would be calculated by
pollutant and their applicable precursors.
(2) Estimated Emission Reductions of CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative
to Total Emission Reductions of the Nonattainment or Maintenance Area--
A measure that expresses the emissions reduced by CMAQ projects as a
percentage of total emission reductions. Total emission reductions are
calculated by taking the difference between the estimated emissions of
all transportation projects and the total allowable emissions (i.e.,
emissions budget) within the nonattainment or maintenance area.
(3) Estimated Emissions Reduction of CMAQ-Funded Projects Relative
to Total Emissions of the Nonattainment or Maintenance Area--A measure
that expresses the emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects as a
percentage of total emissions in the nonattainment or maintenance area.
Total emissions would be obtained from the regional emissions estimates
prepared for the conformity determination for the nonattainment or
maintenance area.
(4) Cost Effectiveness of CMAQ Projects--A measure that compares
the total amount of CMAQ funds spent in an area to estimated emissions
reduced by those CMAQ projects.
Assessment of Potential Measures for Subpart H
The FHWA assessed the four potential on-road mobile source emission
measures based on state-of-practice among States and MPOs and using the
12 criteria described in Section V.A. Table 7 below summarizes the
results of this assessment.

Table 7--Summary of Proposed Performance Management Measures for On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated emission
reductions of CMAQ- Estimated emission
Emission funded projects reductions of CMAQ-
Assessment factor reductions by relative to total funded projects Cost effectiveness
pollutant emission relative to total of CMAQ projects
reductions of the emissions of area
area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A1) Is the measure focused on G G G G
comprehensive performance
outcomes?......................
(A2) Has the measure been G R R R
developed in partnership with
key stakeholders?..............
(A3) Is the measure maintainable G G G G
to accommodate changes?........
(A4) Can the measure be used to G Y Y G
support investment decisions,
policy making and target
establishment?.................
(A5) Can the measures be used to G G G G
analyze performance trends?....
(A6) Has the feasibility and G Y Y Y
practicality to collect, store,
and report data in support of
the measures been considered?..
(B1) Timeliness................. Y Y Y Y
(B2) Consistency................ Y Y Y R
(B3) Completeness............... Y Y Y R
(B4) Accuracy................... G Y Y R
(B5) Accessibility.............. G G G R
(B6) Data Integration........... Y R R R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: G = Green; Y = Yellow; R = Red.

[[Page 23830]]

Based on the assessment summarized above and the additional
principles described in this section, FHWA concluded that the last
three measures were not suitable because they did not provide useful
information for establishing targets, were not developed with key
stakeholders, or in the case of cost effectiveness, data was not
readily available. The measure that best fits the criteria established
by FHWA was emissions reduction by pollutant. With respect to this
measure, FHWA considered the following:
Criterion B1--Measure recognizes that emissions are
estimated, not measured, based on the expected benefit from building
the project. Collecting emissions data on a project-by-project basis
through vehicle probing or another means would be cost prohibitive and
would take years to collect useable data.
Criteria B2 and B3--Measure recognizes that no consistent
method is being used across the country to estimate CMAQ project
emission reductions and that although quantitative emissions analyses
of air quality impacts is expected for almost all project types,
qualitative assessments are acceptable when it is not possible to
accurately quantify emissions reductions (i.e., public education,
marketing and other outreach efforts). The FHWA is conducting a number
of research studies to develop tools to assist with consistency and
completeness of emissions estimates, for those project types where it
is possible to quantify emissions, but these tools will take time for
FHWA to develop.
Criterion B6--While the CMAQ Public Access System does
include estimated emissions reductions by pollutant by project for each
MPO and State that receives CMAQ funds, this database is not integrated
with performance-related data such as a spatial component. Work is
underway to improve and increase the functionalities of the database to
support the performance planning activities.
The FHWA is proposing this approach to define the on-road mobile
source emissions measure in a manner that is consistent with and
reflects the various methods used today by State DOTs and MPOs to
calculate on-road mobile source emissions and is consistent with the
information received from stakeholders. The specifics of this proposal
are described in the Section-by-Section portion of this proposed rule.

D. Consideration of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure

The FHWA is seeking comment on whether and how to establish a
CO2 emissions measure in the final rule. The FHWA received
input through stakeholder listening sessions and various letters
(available in the docket) suggesting that DOT add a GHG emissions
measure because GHGs are correlated with fuel use and air toxins. One
group of commenters specifically asked for a carbon emissions measure
for mobile sources. However, it is clear that reducing CO2
emissions is critical and timely. On-road sources account for over 80
percent of U.S. transportation sector GHGs. In an historic accord in
Paris, the U.S. and over 190 other countries agreed to reduce GHG
emissions, with the goal of limiting global temperature rise to less
than 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial levels by 2050.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
human activity is changing the earth's climate by causing the buildup
of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions through the burning of fossil
fuels and other human processes.\43\ Transportation sources globally
have been a rapidly increasing source of GHGs. Since 1970, GHGs
produced by the transportation sector have more than doubled,
increasing at a faster rate than any other end-use sector. The GHGs
from total global on-road sources have more than tripled, accounting
these sources account for more than 80 percent of the increase in total
global transportation GHG emissions.\44\ In the U.S., GHG emissions
from on-road sources represent approximately 23 percent of economy-wide
GHGs, but have accounted for more than two-thirds of the net increase
in total U.S. GHGs since 1990,\45\ during which time VMT also increased
by more than 30 percent.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ The IPCC Document: IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers.
In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://mitigation2014.org/report/summary-for-policy-makers.
\44\ Sims, et al. 2014: Transport: In Climate Change 2014,
Mitigation of Climate Change. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. p. 605. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter8.pdf.
\45\ This is the first year of official U.S. data.
\46\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2015. Washington, DC.
Tables 2-1 and 2-13. Federal Highway Administration, 2013 Status of
the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions &
Performance. Washington, DC. Exhibit 1-3. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-Main-Text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A well-established scientific record has linked increasing GHG
concentrations with a range of climatic effects, including increased
global temperatures that have the potential to result in dangerous and
potentially irreversible changes in climate and weather. In December
2015, the Conference of Parties nations recognized the need for deep
reductions in global emissions to hold the increase in global average
temperature to well below 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial levels, and are
pursuing efforts to limit temperature increases to 1.5 [deg]C. To that
end, the accord calls on developed countries to take a leadership role
in identifying economy-wide absolute emissions reduction targets and
implementing mitigation programs. Also, as part of a 2014 bilateral
agreement with China, the U.S. pledged to reduce GHG emissions to 26-28
percent below 2005 levels by 2025, with this emissions reduction
pathway intended to support economy-wide reductions of 80 percent or
more by 2050.
The FHWA recognizes that achieving U.S. climate goals will likely
require significant GHG reductions from on-road transportation sources.
To support the consideration of GHG emissions in transportation
planning and decisionmaking, FHWA has developed a variety of resources
to quantify on-road GHG emissions, evaluate GHG reduction strategies,
and integrate climate analysis into the transportation planning
process. The FHWA already encourages transportation agencies to
consider GHG emissions as part of their performance-based
decisionmaking, and has developed a handbook to assist State DOTs and
MPOs interested in addressing GHG emissions through performance-based
planning and programming.\47\ The FHWA has developed tools to help
State and local transportation agencies address GHG emissions
associated with their systems. These include the Energy and Emissions
Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT),\48\ a model that evaluates the
impacts of CO2 reduction policies for surface
transportation, and the Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE),\49\ a
tool that specifically evaluates CO2 associated with the
construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. The FHWA
is also currently conducting a number of pilots

[[Page 23831]]

to analyze the potential GHG emission reductions associated with
various transportation-related mitigation strategies.\50\ Even with
these efforts, FHWA recognizes that more will be needed to meet the
U.S. climate goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ A Performance-Based Approach to Addressing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions through Transportation Planning, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/publications_and_tools/ghg_planning/ghg_planning.pdf.
\48\ The Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool
(EERPAT), available at https://www.planning.dot.gov/FHWA_tool/.
\49\ The Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE), available at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/publications_and_tools/carbon_estimator/.
\50\ FHWA's Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Demonstration
projects are described at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/ongoing_and_current_research/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA is considering how GHG emissions could be estimated and
used to inform planning and programming decisions to reduce long term
emissions. If FHWA were to establish a measure, we believe that, in the
context of this rulemaking, GHG emissions would be best measured as the
total annual tons of CO2 from all on-road mobile sources.
The FHWA is seeking comment on the potential establishment and
effectiveness of a measure as a planning, programming, and reporting
tool, and how we could address the following considerations in the
design of a measure:
Should the measure address all on-road mobile sources or
should it focus only on a particular vehicle type (e.g., light-duty
vehicles)?
Should the measure be normalized by changes in population,
economic activity, or other factors (e.g., per capita or per unit of
gross state product)?
Should the measure be limited to emissions coming from the
tailpipe, or should it consider emissions generated upstream in the
life cycle of the vehicle operations (e.g., emissions from the
extraction/refining of petroleum products and the emissions from power
plants to provide power for electric vehicles)?
Should the measure include non-road sources, such as
construction and maintenance activities associated with Title 23
projects?
Should CO2 emissions performance be estimated
based on gasoline and diesel fuel sales, system use (vehicle miles
traveled), or other surrogates?
Due to the nature of CO2 emissions (e.g.,
geographic scope and cumulative effects) and their relationship to
climate change effects across all parts of the country, should the
measure apply to all States and MPOs? Is there any criteria that would
limit the applicability to only a portion of the States or MPOs?
Would a performance measure on CO2 emissions
help to improve transparency and to realign incentives such that State
DOTs and MPOs are better positioned to meet national climate change
goals?
The target establishment framework proposed in this
rulemaking requires that States and MPOs would establish 2 and 4 year
targets that lead to longer term performance expectations documented in
longer range plans. Is this framework appropriate for a CO2
emissions measure? If not, what would be a more appropriate framework?
Should short term targets be a reflection of improvements
from a baseline (e.g., percent reduction in CO2 emissions)
or an absolute value?
What data sources and tools are readily available or are
needed to track and report CO2 emissions from on-road
sources?
What tools are needed to help transportation agencies
project future emissions and establish targets for a CO2
emission measure?
How long would it take for transportation agencies to
implement such a measure?
Additionally, the FHWA requests data about the potential
agency implementation costs and public benefits associated with
establishing a CO2 emissions measure.

VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and
Proposed Performance Measures Sections

This section discusses how the proposed regulations address MAP-
21's charge to establish performance measures for State DOTs and MPOs
to use to assess: The performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS for the purpose of carrying out the NHPP; freight
movement on the Interstate System; and traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
program. Subpart A discusses common aspects of the proposed rulemaking
related to definitions, reporting, significant progress determination,
and target establishment. Discussion of the performance measures is
organized into four subparts covering three performance areas,
including: Subpart E, which discusses proposed measures to assess
performance of the NHS; Subpart F, which discusses the proposed measure
to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and Subparts G and
H, which discuss the proposed CMAQ measures to assess traffic
congestion and on-road mobile source emissions, respectively.
Subparts E, F, G, and H of the proposed regulations provide the
requirements for the system performance, traffic congestion, freight
movement, and on-road mobile source emissions measures, including any
required methodologies for data collection, data requirements, and
processes for calculating the measures. The Section-by-Section
discussion also addresses procedural discrepancies in data collection
and reporting, and attempts to align them using the latest research and
state-of-the-practice experience to provide consistent national
performance measures.

A. Common Issues Across Subparts E, F, and G

The FHWA established and followed certain standards in the
development of the requirements proposed in Subparts E, F, and G. For
example, for the proposed rules associated with assessing the
performance of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate, and traffic
congestion, FHWA attempted to use a consistent framework and structure,
to the extent possible, because the performance measures associated
with these subparts are largely based on vehicle travel times and
speeds. The following sub-sections summarize the overarching framework
and guiding principles used across these subparts. Information related
to the development of the requirements proposed in Subpart H is
discussed separately.
Measures That Focus on Outcomes for Assessing the Performance of the
NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate, and Traffic Congestion
Transportation performance outcomes can be impacted through the use
of a wide range of strategies that support the transportation
priorities and policies of local areas. In its decisionmaking to
develop proposed measures, FHWA was careful to avoid any measures that
would impact the ability of a State DOT or MPO to make decisions that
work for the local area. For this reason, FHWA focused only on measures
that track transportation performance where outcomes could tell a
national story.
The proposed measures in Subparts E, F, and G of this rulemaking
focus primarily on the consistency and efficiency of travel times on
our Nation's highways. Improvements to this outcome could be the result
of a wide range of strategies such as those that would improve the
operations of highway facilities and those that would decrease the
demand on highway facilities by providing alternative transportation
choices. The FHWA believes that the selection of these strategies is a
local decision and should not be influenced directly by the measure
itself. For this reason, FHWA elected not to propose measures that
would directly measure the implementation of strategies to improve
system operations (i.e., percent modal use, or number of managed
lanes).

[[Page 23832]]

Measures That Use Travel Time Data for Assessing the Performance of the
NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate, and Traffic Congestion
This rulemaking's proposals for subparts E, F, and G (performance
of the NHS, freight movement on the Interstate, and traffic congestion-
related measures) are based on travel times or travel speeds of highway
users. Travel times and speeds are being proposed as the basis for
these measures as FHWA feels that this information accurately reflects
highway operational performance and that the data can be captured
across the full NHS in an accessible national data source in a timely
and reliable manner. The FHWA is proposing the use of the new NPMRDS as
the data source to calculate the metrics for the seven travel time/
speed based measures to ensure consistency and coverage at a national
level. This data set provides travel times representative of all
traffic (freight and passenger vehicles) traveling on the NHS and
captures this information every 5 minutes throughout every day of the
year. The FHWA expects to continue to provide this data set to State
DOTs and MPOs as long as there is a need at a national level for this
information. The proposed regulations allow State DOTs to use
alternative data sources provided the data set is considered at least
equivalent in quality, coverage, and timeliness to the NPMRDS and is
approved by FHWA. States DOTs and MPOs have the option to relate the
travel time data provided in the NPMRDS to their relevant location
referencing system (typically used for transportation planning).
As proposed in section 490.103, States and MPOs shall cooperatively
develop and share information related to transportation systems
performance data. The transportation systems performance data would
include the travel time data set, the selected reporting segments, and
the desired peak period travel time required for use under subparts E,
F, and G.
When the State DOT selects the travel time data set, it must
coordinate with the MPOs in the State that are subject to creating the
metrics and measures in subparts E, F, and G. When the State selects
the reporting segments and the Desired Peak Period Travel Time for a
particular reporting segment, State DOTs must coordinate with the
applicable MPOs that contain the reporting segment within their
metropolitan planning area boundary. States and MPOs must use the same
data (the travel time data set, the reporting segments, and the desired
peak period travel time for a reporting segment) for the purposes of
calculating the metrics and measures.
Dealing With Missing Data When Assessing the Performance of the NHS,
Freight Movement on the Interstate, and Traffic Congestion
Travel times and speeds of highway users may be captured from a
variety of sources such as mobile phones, vehicle transponders,
portable navigation devices, roadway sensors, and cameras. It is
possible that during the day, during specific 5-minute intervals,
travel time or speed data cannot be captured. Five-minute bins without
data would not be reported in the NPMRDS, and would therefore be
considered missing. This can occur due to one of the following reasons:
Reason 1--No users traveled on the roadway during the 5-
minute interval, or
Reason 2--Travel occurred on the roadway but no sources of
data were recognized (i.e., mobile phones, vehicle transponders,
portable navigation devices), or
Reason 3--Equipment failure (e.g., sensor malfunction,
communication system failure).
The FHWA believes that, although missing data is possible due to
Reason 2 listed above, the likelihood of this condition occurring will
decrease over time as data capture technologies advance and as a
greater percentage of highway users carry equipment that allows them to
become viable travel time data sources. The FHWA also believes that it
is valid to assume that travel occurring under the conditions that
would result in missing data for Reason 1 would be consistent with free
flow travel speeds. Lastly, for Reason 3, FHWA realizes that there are
times when equipment used to capture data may fail because of usage,
damage, or other causes. The FHWA believes this will be a more
infrequent cause of missing information than Reason 1. For these
reasons, FHWA is proposing in this rulemaking that missing travel time
data be assumed to be occurring due to Reason 1 for purposes of the
reliability measures (both freight and system performance) on the
Interstate and, consequently, assumes travel times that are consistent
with posted speed limits when data is missing.
The FHWA found, after analysis of missing data in the NPMRDS (a
white-paper on missing data/outliers' impact on proposed measures is
included in the docket), that there was currently sufficient data for
the Interstate so States and MPOs could establish reasonable targets.
However, the analysis also demonstrated that at the current time there
is enough missing data for the non-Interstate NHS that it could impact
the ability of States and MPOs to establish targets. Accordingly, FHWA
is proposing that the non-Interstate reliability measures would be
phased in, giving the States and MPOs an opportunity to understand the
impact of missing data on target establishment and time for the NPMRDS
to become more complete.
Regarding the peak hour travel time measures, which include both
the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS, the measures rely on hourly
average travel times. Missing data does not have the same impact on
target establishment for the peak hour travel time measures as it does
for the reliability measures. So, FHWA proposes no replacement of
missing data for either of the peak hour measures. However, in its
analysis of the data, FHWA noted that outliers could have an effect on
these measures, so FHWA is proposing that States and MPOs remove
extreme outliers (i.e., those travel times at speeds less than 2 mph
and over 100 mph) from the data set before calculating the peak hour
measures. These outliers are further discussed in a white-paper on
missing data/outliers' impact on proposed measures, which is included
in the docket.
Missing data potentially could have an impact on target
establishment for the traffic congestion measure (Annual Hours of
Excessive Delay Per Capita). Because this is a delay measure that sums
all the delay identified on segments, missing data could mean missing
some delay in calculating the measure. This could make it difficult for
States and MPOs to achieve targets due to more complete data may be
available in the future. The FHWA is proposing that this measure would
be phased in, to allow States and MPOs time to understand the impact of
missing data on establishing targets, and for the NPMRDS to become more
complete.
As mentioned, a white-paper on missing data/outliers' impact on
proposed measures is included in the docket. This paper includes
information on options such as applying a path-type processing that
uses the actual observations of the vehicles on segments adjacent to
those segments with missing data and that traversed the segment with
missing data to fill in the missing travel times, and the impacts of
trimming the data at 2 and 100 mph. The FHWA is seeking comment on this
process and other processes that FHWA should consider to improve
missing data and outlier impacts.

[[Page 23833]]

Phasing in Target Establishment Requirements for Less Mature Measures
The FHWA is proposing a phased-in approach to the establishment of
targets for both the non-Interstate NHS reliability measure and the
traffic congestion (excessive delay) measure. The phased-in approach
would provide 2 years for data coverage on non-Interstate NHS roadways
to be more complete and for States and MPOs to understand the impacts
of missing data on establishing targets. The completeness of travel
time data in the NPMRDS is greater for the Interstate as compared to
other NHS roadways. The FHWA believes that the completeness of data in
the NPMRDS will improve over time as sources become more prevalent
(missing data is discussed in a white paper provided on the docket).
The FHWA also believes that State DOTs have more experience in
collecting and reporting reliability and congestion performance on the
Interstate as compared to other NHS roadways and, as a result, are more
readily capable to establish targets for the Interstate System.
However, missing data for the non-Interstate NHS may lead to
uncertainty for State DOTs and MPOs as they establish targets. Giving
time to State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets for the non-Interstate
NHS may help them learn how to manage that uncertainty. For these
reasons, FHWA believes that a phased approach to target establishment
is appropriate for those measures that are derived from data on the
non-Interstate NHS.
Travel Time Reliability for Assessing the Performance of the NHS and
Freight Movement on the Interstate
The FHWA heard consistently from stakeholders that managing the
travel time reliability of the highway network is important and should
be considered as part of this rulemaking. For this reason, as part of
this rulemaking FHWA is proposing the establishment of travel time
reliability measures. In general, the proposed reliability measures
address: (1) The reliability of the entire NHS for all travelers; and
(2) the reliability of the Interstate System for longer haul freight
movements. Reliability focuses on variability in travel times, and the
travel time measures in this rulemaking focus on identifying portions
of the NHS and Interstate (for freight) that have high levels of
unreliable travel. An example of unreliable travel is a trip that takes
30 minutes on a typical day but could take over 45 minutes on a random
day. This extra trip time might be due to a road or lane closure, a
traffic accident, or bad weather. The FHWA intends that the measure for
reliability of the NHS for all travelers would be used to identify the
areas of the transportation network where there are the greatest
impacts on travel when non-recurring incidents occur. Non-recurring
incidents include temporary disruptions, such as incidents ranging from
a flat tire to an overturned hazardous material truck, work zones,
weather, and special events. In contrast, the proposed measure for
freight travel time reliability is based only on freight travel and
considers the longest travel times experienced as compared to travel
times more likely during normal travel time conditions throughout all
hours of the day. The index provided by this reliability measure is an
important piece of information for shippers and suppliers so they can
plan for a higher likelihood of on-time arrivals of deliveries. These
reliability measures are discussed in more detail in the section-by-
section portion of this NPRM.
Travel Time Delay for Assessing Freight Movement on the Interstate and
Traffic Congestion
The FHWA is proposing two measures to assess traffic congestion:
(1) One measure to represent congestion impacting freight movement,
which is proposed in Subpart F; and (2) One measure to represent
overall traffic congestion, which is proposed in Subpart G. Although
both proposed measures use delay as the basis for determining
congestion, the two differ in design and intended purpose.
The first proposed congestion measure related to freight movement
is focused on delay and is intended to be used to assess delay that
could occur on the Interstate System. This proposed delay measure
represents the percentage of the Interstate System that is uncongested
as defined by a speed threshold of 50 mph. The FHWA aimed to understand
the point of inflection to consider speeds and viewed 50 mph as
appropriate for this measure. This is due in part because trucks often
have speed governors installed on them so that they cannot travel much
faster than 55 mph. Additionally, freight stakeholders commented that
50 mph or greater is where they would like to be in terms of average
speed. The FHWA is seeking comment on this threshold.
The second proposed measure, related to traffic congestion and
focused on Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita, is intended to
be used to assess delays that FHWA believes would be considered
excessive by users of the NHS roadways in large urbanized areas. This
proposed delay measure is an indication of the additional time spent by
all users of the system (quantified by the total estimated vehicles
using the system) when traveling at speeds considerably lower than
typical speed limits. In addition, this measure is proposed to be only
applicable to the largest urbanized areas in the country: The portion
of those that exceed a population of 1 million.
Reliable Performance for the NHS and Freight Movement on the Interstate
Three of the eight measures proposed in this rulemaking focus on
measuring reliable performance: (1) Section 490.507(a)(1) Percent of
the Interstate System providing for reliable travel times, (2) Section
490.507(a)(2) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for reliable
travel times, and (3) Section 490.607(a) Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage providing reliable truck travel times. The discussions
provided in this section provide an explanation of how ``reliable''
performance is defined, understanding that the meaning of this term can
be very subjective, especially when discussing outcomes that are
derived from travel time and speed data. Each of the measures that
focus on ``reliable'' performance includes a clearly defined
calculation to remove any subjectivity in the meaning of the term. As
discussed above, FHWA is proposing measures that, although they include
similar methods of calculation, would be used to assess different
aspects of highway performance. In general, reliable performance for
the five proposed measures can be grouped as follows:
Subpart E--Travel time reliability as being reliable for
highway users;
Subpart F--Truck travel time reliability as being reliable
for shippers and suppliers.
Additional discussion is provided in each subpart to explain the
method used to identify the percentage of the transportation network
that would be considered ``reliable'' to these different users and
stakeholders.
Impact of Traffic Volumes on Travel Time Derived Measures
The measures being proposed in this rulemaking that are derived
from travel times reflect: System reliability, peak hour travel times,
truck congestion, and excessive delay. With the exception of excessive
delay, FHWA did not factor the volume of traffic in the calculations
for these proposed measures. Consequently, these measures do not
directly capture the weight of traffic volumes in the results. Rather,
the measures are calculated based on the

[[Page 23834]]

length of roadway segments. Table 8 below provides a very simple
example to illustrate the impact of traffic volume on the measure
calculation:

Table 8--An Example To Illustrate the Impact of Traffic Volume on the Measure Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual traffic
volume Length reliable Vehicle miles Vehicle miles
Road segment length (direction-miles) (thousands of Reliable? (direction- reliable traveled
vehicles) miles) (thousands) (thousands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................................. 2,700 Yes............................. 5 13,500 13,500
1............................................. 73,000 No.............................. 0 0 73,000
3............................................. 5,000 Yes............................. 3 15,000 15,000
6............................................. 1,700 No.............................. 0 0 10,200
2............................................. 50,000 Yes............................. 2 100,000 0
2............................................. 18,000 Yes............................. 2 36,000 36,000
1............................................. 75,000 Yes............................. 1 75,000 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = 20................................ ................ ................................ Total = 13 Total = 239,500 Total = 322,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this simplified example using a mileage based approach 13
direction-miles, or 65.0 percent (13/20), of the network would be
considered ``reliable,'' and using a volume weighted approach 239,500
VMT, or 74.2 percent (239,500/322,700), of the VMT would have been
``reliable.'' This example illustrates the differences in these two
approaches.
Except for the excessive delay measure, FHWA elected to use a
mileage based approach and not to weigh the measures by volume due to
the absence of data regarding actual traffic volumes particularly for
the level of roadway coverage and granularity needed (entire NHS and 5-
minute temporal granularity). The system reliability, peak hour travel
times, and truck congestion measures are intended to evaluate system
performance. This objective can be achieved by analyzing performance on
roadway segments and then indicating, via roadway segment length,
whether or not a segment is performing to a satisfactory level (based
on thresholds defined in this rule). If actual, observed volumes were
available at these roadway segment levels every 5 minutes as well, an
optional approach would be to identify the amount of VMT that met the
measure thresholds, as demonstrated in Table 8. This would require
actual volume counts every 5 minutes for every NHS road segment, data
which do not currently exist. The FHWA believes it would be
inappropriate to introduce estimated data for these measures, which are
otherwise focused on actual data. As a result, FHWA is proposing the
use of roadway segment length as the means for reporting the metrics
and measures.
In addition, FHWA believes performance expressed as the percent of
the system mileage is more easily understood by the public as compared
to measures that would be expressed as the percentage of vehicle miles
traveled. The FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to consider
strategies that would provide the greatest impact to improving the
performance of overall traffic volumes by focusing on roadway segments
that carry higher volumes of traffic.
The Total Excessive Delay measure, on the other hand, needs to be
weighted by something to be meaningful, as it is basically a sum of all
the excessive travel times on the NHS in an urban area. If excessive
delay during a 5 minute period (say 5 seconds) were simply totaled for
every 5 minute period and roadway segment, then the excessive delay
travel time on a roadway segment with one car would be equivalent to a
roadway segment with 110 cars. Such an analysis would not capture the
scope of the delay (how many vehicles are actually experiencing that 5
second excessive travel time). Hourly volumes (of vehicles) are a
typical means of weighting delay measures. Therefore, for the Total
Excessive Delay measure, FHWA requires development of hourly volumes
based on actual vehicle counts or estimated from AADT (an estimated
number from limited vehicle count data). State DOTs and MPOs can
develop hourly volume estimates with AADT information provided to HPMS
every year for their NHS roadways. In this case, using the best-
available data, even if it is estimated, is preferable than not using
such data, because DOTs and MPOs would have difficulty setting targets
for this measure without weighting it by the number of vehicles
experiencing the delay.
The FHWA is seeking comments on this approach and encourages
comments suggesting alternative methods that may more effectively
capture the impact of performance changes on differing levels of system
use.
Focus on Large Urbanized Areas for Assessing the Performance of the NHS
and Traffic Congestion
In addition to travel time reliability, FHWA is proposing travel
time or speed based measures to assess and manage the worst areas of
delay or congestion in large urbanized areas. The FHWA felt that this
type of measure was most applicable to urbanized areas where
populations are greater than 1 million, as these areas are where delay
is most likely to occur, and where State DOTs and MPOs likely have a
greater level of capability, experience, and need to manage the traffic
operations. As proposed, three of the seven travel time or speed based
measures are limited to these large urbanized areas. They are: (1)
Section 490.507(b)(1) Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour
travel times meet expectations, (2) section 490.507(b)(2) Percent of
the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times meet expectations,
and (3) section 490.707 Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita. The
peak hour travel time measures capture congestion only during peak
periods of use (commute-related congestion) and the annual hours of
excessive delay per capita captures congestion throughout the day
(overall delay).
The FHWA is proposing that only urbanized areas over 1 million in
population would be subject to these measures because of the additional
performance-reporting requirements that these areas, which are also
nonattainment or maintenance areas, have to complete for the CMAQ-
related measures (23 U.S.C. 149(l)) including Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay per Capita. By requiring MPOs in these areas to do additional
CMAQ performance reporting, Congress placed a special emphasis on these
larger urbanized areas. The FHWA considered this emphasis when it
evaluated

[[Page 23835]]

whether all areas or only a smaller subset of areas within a State
should be subject to the traffic congestion measure.
In FHWA's experience, areas over 1 million in population are
generally more complex from a transportation perspective. Those areas
have more population, resulting in more trips. These areas also tend to
have a variety of transportation options available, including highways,
airports, commercial rail. In more concentrated urban environments, the
areas may also be more constrained in terms of where any new facilities
to accommodate demand can be located. There also may be higher costs
for right-of-way acquisition. For all these reasons, FHWA's experience
is that transportation planning in these larger urban areas is
generally more complex than in areas less than 1 million in population,
resulting in a greater need to manage the transportation system and,
specifically, traffic operations. In addition, these larger areas do
receive more Surface Transportation Program suballocated funding than
smaller areas (see 23 U.S.C. 133(d)). For all these reasons, FHWA
believe it is important that these areas look more closely peak hour
travel times and excessive delay as they are managing traffic
operations.
The FHWA also considered whether the measure should apply: To
another subset of areas within the State, such as areas where MPOs
serve a TMA \51\ as these areas may have more experience with the
congestion management process provided for in 23 U.S.C. 134(k); to all
urbanized areas within the State; or to the entire State. Because of
the additional burden involved in measuring peak hour and traffic
congestion, FHWA is proposing that only urbanized areas where
populations are greater than 1 million in population would be subject
to these measures. The FHWA is requesting comment on: Whether a
population threshold should be used for determining the measure
applicability; and if so then whether 1 million is the appropriate
threshold, or whether another threshold (e.g., population over 200,000)
would be more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ A transportation management area (TMA) is defined in
Federal statute (23 U.S.C. 134(k)) as an urbanized area having a
population of over 200,000, or otherwise designated by the Governor
and the MPO and officially designated by the FHWA and FTA
Administrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Within the United States there are 42 urbanized areas that have
populations greater than 1 million based on the most recent U.S. Census
(2010). These 42 areas are included within or intersect with 35 State
and 67 metropolitan planning area boundaries. The FHWA is proposing
that for these measures (traffic congestion measure and the peak hour
travel time measures for system performance), one single target be
established for the roadways within the urbanized area, including those
areas that intersect with multiple State and metropolitan planning area
boundaries. This single target would need to be agreed upon and shared
by all of the entities in the urbanized area. For example, one target
would be established for the Philadelphia urbanized area that would be
shared by the four States and four MPOs that collectively make
transportation investment decisions for the area. The FHWA recognizes
that for these large areas, performance is not constrained by political
boundaries and that strategies to address performance should be
addressed regionally and across political boundaries. For these
measures, strategies taken in one political jurisdiction can have
direct and indirect impacts when measuring performance in another
proximate political jurisdiction. The FHWA felt that this approach
would increase the potential for coordination across jurisdictions to
manage the overall performance of the region.
Starting With Highways and Expanding to Other Surface Transportation
Modes for Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA heard from many stakeholders that the traffic congestion
measure should consider the mobility of travelers using all modes of
surface transportation such as highways, commuter railways, bikeways,
and walkways. The measure proposed in this rulemaking to assess traffic
congestion does not fully address this as it is focused only on vehicle
delays on NHS highways. The FHWA elected to propose a vehicle delay
measure at this time due to the limited availability of reliable,
accurate, comprehensive, and timely data for the other surface
transportation modes. This type of data would be needed to calculate a
more comprehensive delay measure that considers all travelers and all
surface modes of transportation. However, FHWA would like to move to a
measure in the future that would consider the mobility of travelers
using all surface modes of transportation and is seeking comment on
feasible approaches that can be taken to move toward the development of
such as measure. The CMAQ traffic congestion delay measure proposed in
this rulemaking does consider the travel times of vehicles and
passengers to the extent they are captured as sources during data
collection. In addition, the CMAQ traffic congestion delay measure is
expressed as a rate by dividing the total vehicle delay in the area by
the total population of the area, which would potentially reflect
successful implementation of strategies to provide transportation
choices other than highway travel. This proposal is discussed in more
detail in the Section-by-Section portion of this preamble for Subpart
G.
Improving the Operations of the Existing Transportation Network by
Assessing Traffic Congestion
The FHWA heard from many stakeholders that the traffic congestion
measure should directly capture the impact of transportation network
connectivity issues and land use decisionmaking to improve public
accessibility to essential services. The FHWA believes that the delay
measure proposed in this rulemaking to assess traffic congestion will
reflect these types of strategies to the degree they minimize impacts
on highway traffic operations. However, FHWA is not proposing a measure
to directly assess transportation connectivity or accessibility. The
focus of the proposed measure is to improve the operations of the
existing network by reducing congestion, and does not assess if the
network or use of land, as designed, is providing for the most
efficient connections to adequately move people and goods from their
origin to their destination. The FHWA believes that the scope of 23
U.S.C. 150(c) relates to establishing measures for State DOTs and MPOs
to use to assess traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out
section 149, which is a component of the Federal-aid highway program.
Improving overall network connectivity is a priority for DOT and FHWA.
Outside of this rulemaking, 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.

B. Issues Relating to Subpart H

In the development of the requirements in Subpart H, FHWA attempted
to use a similar approach as in other subparts. Subpart H is focused on
emissions reduced by CMAQ-funded projects in a nonattainment or
maintenance area. A summary of the framework used is discussed below.

[[Page 23836]]

Use of Existing/Available Dataset for Assessing On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
This rulemaking proposes to use data included in the existing CMAQ
Public Access System to calculate the metric for the on-road mobile
source emissions measure. The CMAQ Public Access System is a database
of CMAQ project information reported by each State DOT as part of the
CMAQ annual reports to FHWA. The Public Access System contains all
CMAQ-funded projects by Federal fiscal year and their estimated
emissions reductions by pollutant and precursor applicable to the CMAQ
program. For purposes of calculating the on-road mobile source
emissions measure, use of this existing data set provides a national
data source for emissions reductions estimates and will not require a
new data collection process.
Dealing With Missing Data When Assessing On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions
While quantitative emissions reductions are expected for most
projects entered into the CMAQ Public Access System, it is not required
nor has it been possible for some pollutants, especially PM emissions.
Project sponsors have always had the option to provide a qualitative
assessment based on a reasoned and logical evaluation of a project or
programs emission benefits. Also, prior to December 20, 2012, EPA's
emission model had significant limitations that made it unsatisfactory
for use in microscale analyses of PM2.5 and PM10
emissions. Once MOVES was released on December 20, 2010, areas had a 2
year grace period before the model was required to be used for CAA
purposes and many areas also used that grace period to transition to
using the model for estimating emissions for CMAQ projects. Therefore,
the CMAQ Public Access System includes a mix of both quantitative and
qualitative emissions estimates, and in some cases, incomplete
emissions estimates for certain pollutants.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ FHWA is currently conducting a research effort in an
attempt to understand the impact of missing data in the
implementation of this measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to reflect the performance of the CMAQ program in reducing
on-road mobile source emissions, FHWA is proposing to include only
projects with quantitative emissions estimates in the proposed measure.
The FHWA understands that State DOTs and/or MPOs may want to amend
their project information with quantitative emissions estimates so the
emissions reductions can be included in the performance measure. The
FHWA is proposing that State DOTs and/or MPOs be allowed to amend their
emissions information for projects in the CMAQ Public Access System to
include a quantitative emissions estimate where a qualitative analysis
may have been used in the past or, in the case of PM emissions, where
an appropriate model was not available. State DOTs and/or MPOs would
not be required to amend their project information, but we are also
soliciting comments on other ways State DOTs and/or MPOs may update or
amend their project information with quantitative emissions estimates
for use in implementing this performance measure.
Focus on Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas When Assessing On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions
The FHWA heard from stakeholders that while all States receive some
level of CMAQ funding, the CMAQ on-road mobile source emissions measure
should only apply in nonattainment and maintenance areas. The main
purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund transportation projects or
programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS
for O3, CO, and PM (both PM10 and
PM2.5). Therefore, FHWA determined that the performance
measure should also focus on that same purpose. For this reason, the
proposed measure in this rulemaking is only applicable to nonattainment
and maintenance areas within a State. If a State does not have any
nonattainment or maintenance areas, then FHWA is proposing this measure
would not apply to them.
Further Improvements to the Public Access System To Ease the Assessment
On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
While the CMAQ Public Access System has been available since summer
2011, and FHWA has been keeping a database of CMAQ projects and their
estimated emissions since the beginning of the program, there are
opportunities to improve the data. In addition to increasing the number
of projects with quantitative emissions estimates, the quality of the
data and methods used to calculate emissions can also be improved. The
FHWA is developing a tool kit, that will be released in modules
beginning late spring 2016, of best practices for estimating emissions
by project type for project sponsors to improve the assumptions and
calculations used in their quantitative estimates. The FHWA developed
cost effectiveness tables \53\ to be used as a guide by State DOTs and
MPOs during the project selection process and when developing
performance plans under 23 U.S.C. 149(l). Finally, FHWA also improved
the function and usability of the Public Access System in February 2016
to make it easier to develop reports needed for both this rulemaking
and the CMAQ performance plan requirements under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/cost_effectiveness_tables/costeffectiveness.pdf.
\54\ https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/cmaq_pub/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Detailed Discussion of the Proposed Subparts

The elements discussed above were used by FHWA to develop the
proposed regulations presented in this rulemaking. The next sections of
this NPRM provide detailed discussions on each of the proposed measures
and how they could be used by State DOTs and MPOs to establish and
report on targets and by FHWA to assess progress made toward the
achievement of targets.
1. Subpart A: General Information, Target Establishment, Reporting, and
NHPP and NHFP Significant Progress Determination
In this section, FHWA describes the proposed additions to Subpart
A, which covers general information, target establishment, reporting,
and NHPP and NHFP significant progress determination. This section
builds on the proposal introduced in the second NPRM that covered
measures to assess pavement and bridge condition on the NHS. For a
complete picture, readers are directed to the docket which contains the
regulatory text for Subpart A in its entirety. In addition, this
section also incorporates the FAST Act changes to the NHPP significant
progress determination, and the addition of a requirement for a NHFP
significant progress determination. The discussions of the proposed
requirements are organized as follows:
Section 490.101 discusses proposed definitions;
Section 490.103 describes the proposed data requirements;
Section 490.105 presents the proposed requirements related
to establishing performance targets;
Section 490.107 discusses reporting on performance
targets;
Section 490.109 describes assessing significant progress
toward achieving the performance targets for the NHPP and NHFP; and,
Section 490.111 discusses the material FHWA would
incorporate by reference into the proposed rule.

[[Page 23837]]

The proposed measures in this NPRM are summarized in Table 9 below.
The proposed measures are grouped in 490.105(c) to better reference the
proposed measures throughout Subpart A.

Table 9--Summary of Proposed Measures in the 3rd NPRM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric data source
Measure groups in Sec. Proposed Measure [23 CFR] & Measure
490.105(c) performance applicability [23 collection Metric reporting Metric calculation
measures [23 CFR] CFR] frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHS Travel time reliability Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Level of Travel Percentage of the
measures [Sec. 490.105(c)(4)]. Interstate System Interstate System Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Reliability Interstate
providing for [Sec. 490.503]. 490.103]--5- [Sec. (LOTTR) [Sec. direction-miles
Reliable Travel minute cycle. 490.511(d)]. 490.511]. of reporting
Times [Sec. segments with
490.507(a)(1)]. ``LOTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Percent of the non- Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Level of Travel Percentage of the
Interstate NHS non-Interstate Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Reliability Interstate
providing for NHS [Sec. 490.103]--5- [Sec. (LOTTR) [Sec. direction-miles
Reliable Travel 490.503]. minute cycle. 490.511(d)]. 490.511]. of reporting
Times [Sec. segments with
490.507(a)(2)]. ``LOTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Peak hour travel time measures Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Peak Hour Travel Percentage of the
[Sec. 490.105(c)(5)]. Interstate System Interstate System Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Ratio non-Interstate
where peak hour in urbanized 490.103]--5- [Sec. (PHTTR) [Sec. NHS direction-
travel times meet areas with a minute cycle. 490.511(d)]. 490.511]. miles of
expectations population over 1 reporting
[Sec. million [Sec. segments with ''
490.507(b)(1)]. 490.503]. PHTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Percent of the non- Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Peak Hour Travel Percentage of the
Interstate NHS non-Interstate Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Time Ratio non-Interstate
where peak hour NHS in urbanized 490.103]--5- [Sec. (PHTTR) [Sec. NHS direction-
travel times meet areas with a minute cycle. 490.611(d)]. 490.511]. miles of
expectations population over 1 reporting
[Sec. million [Sec. segments with ''
490.507(b)(2)]. 490.503]. PHTTR <1.50''
[Sec. 490.513].
Freight movement on the Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Truck Travel Time Percentage of the
Interstate System measures Interstate System Interstate System. Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Reliability [Sec. Interstate
[Sec. 490.105(c)(6)]. Mileage providing 490.103]--5- [Sec. 490.611]. direction-miles
for Reliable minute cycle. 490.611(d)]. of reporting
Truck Travel segments with
Times [Sec. ``Truck Travel
490.607(a)]. Time Reliability
<1.50''.
Percent of the Mainline of the NPMRDS or Annual metric Average Truck Percentage of the
Interstate System Interstate System. Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Speed [Sec. Interstate
Mileage 490.103]--5- [Sec. 490.611]. direction-miles
Uncongested [Sec. minute cycle. 490.611(d)]. of reporting
490.607(b)]. segments with
``Average Truck
Speed 50 mph''
[Sec. 490.613].
Traffic congestion measure [Sec. Annual Hours of Mainline of NHS in NPMRDS or Annual metric Total Excessive Annual Hours of
490.105(c)(7)]. Excessive Delay urbanized areas Equivalent [Sec. reporting to HPMS Delay [Sec. Excessive Delay
Per Capita [Sec. with a population 490.103]--5- [Sec. 490.711]. per Capita =
490.707]. over 1 million in minute cycle. 490.711(f)]. (Total Excessive
Nonattainment or Traffic volume delay )/(total
Maintenance for and population population of UZA
any of the data in HPMS. ) [Sec.
criteria 490.713].
pollutants under
the CMAQ program.
On-road mobile source emissions Total Emission All Nonattainment CMAQ Public Access CMAQ Public Access Annual Project Cumulative
measure [Sec. 490.105(c)(8)]. Reductions for and Maintenance System. System [Sec. Emission emission
applicable areas for CMAQ 490.809]. Reductions [Sec. reduction due to
criteria criteria 490.811]. all projects for
pollutants [Sec. pollutants [Sec. each of the
490.807]. 490.803]. criteria
pollutant or
precursor for
which the area is
in nonattainment
or maintenance
(PM2.5, PM10, CO,
VOC and NOX).
[Sec. 490.813].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Section 490.101 General Definitions
In this section, FHWA proposes to define and describe the proposed
use of key terms that will be used throughout this NPRM. The first NPRM
and the second NPRM included several definitions (full extent, HPMS,
measure, metric, National Bridge Inventory (NBI), non-urbanized area,
performance period, and target) that are repeated in this NPRM to
clarify the proposed implementation of the performance measures. Please
see the docket for the entire listing of proposed definitions and for
any additional information.
The FHWA proposes to define ``criteria pollutant'' in the same way
as this term is defined in the general conformity rule at 40 CFR part
93, subpart B (specifically, 40 CFR 93.152). As part of this
definition, FHWA proposes to list the transportation-related criteria
pollutants from the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.102(b)(1).
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``freight
bottleneck'' for use in Part 490. A freight bottleneck is a segment of
the Interstate System not meeting thresholds for freight reliability
and congestion, as identified in section 490.613, and any other
locations the

[[Page 23838]]

State DOT wishes to identify as a bottleneck based on its own freight
plans or related documents.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``Full Extent'' to
delineate data collection methods that utilize a sampling approach
versus those that use a continuous form of data collection.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS)'' because it will be one of the data sources
used in establishing a measure and establishing a target. The HPMS is
an FHWA maintained, national level highway information system that
includes State DOT-submitted data on the extent, condition,
performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's
highways. The HPMS database was jointly developed and implemented by
FHWA and State DOTs beginning in 1974 and it is a continuous data
collection system serving as the primary source of information for the
Federal Government about the Nation's highway system. Additionally, the
data in the HPMS is used for the analysis of highway system condition,
performance, and investment needs that make up the biennial Condition
and Performance Reports to Congress. These Reports are used by the
Congress in establishing both authorization and appropriation
legislation, activities that ultimately determine the scope and size of
the Federal-aid highway program. Increasingly, State DOTs, as well as
the MPOs, have utilized the HPMS as they have addressed a wide variety
of concerns about their highway systems.\55\ Numerous State DOTs and
some MPOs use HPMS data and its analytical capabilities for supporting
their condition/performance assessment, investment requirement
analysis, strategic, and State planning efforts, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ Highway Performance Monitoring System, FHWA Office of
Policy Information. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/nahpms.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA proposes to define ``mainline highway'' to limit the
extent of the highway system to be included in the scope of the
proposed pavement performance measures. The proposed definition for
mainline highway includes the primary traveled portion of the roadway
and excludes ramps, climbing lanes, turn lanes, auxiliary lanes,
shoulders, and non-normally traveled pavement surfaces.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``measure'' because
establishing measures is a critical element of an overall performance
management approach and it is important to have a common definition
that FHWA can use throughout the Part. To have a consistent definition
for ``measure,'' FHWA proposes to make a distinction between
``measure'' and ``metric.'' Hence, FHWA proposes to define ``metric''
as a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition and to define
``measure'' as an expression based on a metric that is used to
establish targets and to assess progress toward achieving the
established targets.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of the ``National
Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS)'' because use of this
FHWA-furnished data set by States and MPOs is proposed for calculating
metrics to assess: Performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS in Subpart E; freight movement on the Interstate System
in Subpart F; and traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out
the CMAQ Program in Subpart G. The FHWA's proposed definition of the
NPMRDS is a data set derived from vehicle-based probe data that
includes average travel times representative of all segments of the NHS
for all traffic and for freight traffic. It is important to note that
for the purpose of this rulemaking, the freight measures require the
use of the freight traffic travel times that are representative of
freight trucks for those segments that are on the Interstate System
only. The NPMRDS includes freight trucks for all segments of the NHS.
Segments are defined by the Traffic Message Channel (TMC) location
referencing system used by private sector probe data providers. Segment
lengths are typically set as the distance between interchanges,
intersections, etc., on roadways, and can be as small as 1/10th of a
mile or longer than 10 miles, depending on location. The data set
contains records that include average travel times for every 5 minutes
of every day (24 hours) of the year, recorded and calculated for every
travel time segment where probe data is available. The NPMRDS does not
include any imputed travel time data (i.e., data that is not from
actual observations such as that derived from historical data for
similar days/times). The NPMRDS is used by FHWA to research and develop
transportation system performance measures and information related to
mobility, including travel time, speed, and reliability. Each travel
time segment in the NPMRDS has a maximum of 105,408 5-minute average
travel time data points annually.\56\ Monthly updates to the NPMRDS are
made available to State DOTs and MPOs by the middle of the month
following collection (e.g., February 2015 data would be available
around March 15, 2015). Each NPMRDS segment is identifiable via a
unique geographic location reference called a TMC code. The TMC codes
are used by most private sector mapping companies and data providers.
Any State DOT or MPO using NPMRDS data has the option to use the TMC
coding system to match the NPMRDS segment-level data to the State DOT
or MPO's own NHS location referencing system. The FHWA believes use of
a national travel time data set by States or MPOs will yield the best
data consistency across the States and MPOs and provide for total
coverage of the NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ Estimate based on 12 records per hour, 24 hours per day,
and 366 days in the longest year that could occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``non-urbanized
areas'' to provide clarity in the implementation of the provision in 23
U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that allows the State DOTs the option of selecting
different targets for ``urbanized and rural areas.'' As written, the
statute is silent regarding the small urban areas that fall between
``rural'' and ``urbanized'' areas. Instead of only giving the State
DOTs the option of establishing targets for ``rural'' and ``urbanized''
areas, FHWA proposes to define ``non-urbanized'' area include a single
geographic area that includes all ``rural'' areas and small urban areas
that are larger than ``rural'' areas but do not meet the criteria of an
``urbanized area'' (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34)). This would
then allow State DOTs to establish different targets throughout the
entire State for urbanized areas and a target for a non-urbanized area.
For target establishment purposes, FHWA believes that these small urban
areas are best treated with the ``rural'' areas, as non-urbanized
areas, because both of these areas do not have the same complexities
that come with having the population and density of urbanized areas and
are generally more rural in characteristic. In addition, neither of
these areas are treated as MPOs in the transportation planning process
or given the authority under MAP-21 to establish their own targets.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``Performance
period'' to establish a definitive period of time during which
condition/performance would be measured, evaluated, and reported. The
frequency of measurement and target establishment for the measures
proposed to implement 23 U.S.C. 150 is not directly or indirectly
defined in statute. The FHWA proposes a consistent time period of 4
years that would be used to assess non-safety

[[Page 23839]]

condition/performance. This time period aligns with the timing of the
biennial performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) and
is consistent with a typical planning cycle for most State DOTs and
MPOs (e.g., State and MPO transportation improvement programs are
required to cover a 4-year period; metropolitan plans are also required
to be updated every 4 or 5 years). The proposed calendar year basis is
consistent with data reporting requirements currently in place to
report pavement and bridge conditions, which are also done on a
calendar year basis. For the measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(7) in Parts C through G, FHWA proposes a definition for
``Performance period'' that would cover a 4-year period beginning on
January 1 of the calendar year in which State DOT targets are due to
FHWA, as discussed in section 490.105. For the on-road mobile source
emission measure in section 490.105(c)(8) in Part H, FHWA proposes a
definition for ``Performance period'' that would cover a 4-year period
beginning on October 1st of the year prior in which State DOT targets
are due to FHWA, as discussed in section 490.105. Please refer to
section 490.105(e)(4) for more details. Within a performance period,
condition/performance would be measured and evaluated to: (1) Assess
condition/performance with respect to baseline condition/performance;
and (2) track progress toward the achievement of the target that
represents the intended condition/performance level at the midpoint and
at the end of that time period. The term ``Performance period'' applies
to all proposed measures in Parts C though H. The proposed measures for
the HSIP provided for in section 490.209 in Part B where FHWA proposed
a 1 calendar year period as the basis for measurement, target
establishment and reporting.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Reporting Segment''
because, with FHWA's approval, State DOTs and MPOs may choose to
combine individual Travel Time Segments (such as the TMC codes
referenced in the prior paragraph) into longer, contiguous reporting
segments. The FHWA's proposed definition of ``Reporting Segment'' is
the length of roadway that is comprised of one or more contiguous
Travel Time Segments that the State DOT and MPOs coordinate to define
for metric calculation and reporting.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``target'' to
indicate how measures will be used for target establishment by State
DOTs and MPOs to assess performance or condition.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Transportation
Management Area (TMA)'' consistent with the definition in 23 CFR
450.104.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Travel Time Data
Set'' because in the event that either (1) NPMRDS data is unavailable,
or (2) a State DOT requests, and FHWA approves the use of an equivalent
data set, then the approved equivalent set of travel time data can be
used to calculate metrics to assess performance of the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS, freight movement on the Interstate
System, and traffic congestion for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
Program. The FHWA's proposed definition of ``Travel Time Data Set'' is
either the NPMRDS or an FHWA-approved equivalent data set that is used
to carry out the requirements in Subparts E, F, and G of Part 490.
The FHWA proposes to include a definition of ``Travel Time
Reliability'' since this term is used to describe proposed measures for
the performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS and for
freight movement on the Interstate System. The FHWA's proposed
definition for Travel Time Reliability is consistency or dependability
of travel times from day to day or across different times of the day.
The definition is based on one that FHWA has used in prior research and
studies. The FHWA believes that Travel Time Reliability is important to
many transportation system users, including vehicle drivers, public
transit riders, and freight shippers. All of these users value Travel
Time Reliability, or consistent travel times, more than average travel
time because it provides reliability and efficiency when planning for
trip times.
The FHWA's proposed definition of ``Travel Time Segment'' is a set
length, which is contiguous, of the NHS for which average travel time
data are summarized in the Travel Time Data Set (in the NPMRDS, this
would be the TMC codes).
The FHWA proposes to incorporate definitions for ``attainment
area,'' ``maintenance area,'' ``metropolitan planning organization
(MPO),'' ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
``nonattainment area,'' and ``Transportation Management Area (TMA)'' as
these terms are defined in the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan and
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Regulations in 23 CFR 450.104.
Discussion of Section 490.103 Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing in section 490.103 data requirements that
apply to more than one subpart in Part 490. Additional proposed data
requirements that are unique to each subpart are included and discussed
in their respective subpart.
In this section, FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would submit
urbanized area boundaries in accordance with the HPMS Field Manual. The
boundaries of urbanized areas would be as identified through the most
recent U.S. Decennial Census unless FHWA approves adjustments to the
urbanized area, as submitted by State DOTs and allowed for under 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(34). These boundaries would be maintained in the HPMS and
used to calculate measures that are applicable to specific urbanized
areas or to assess State DOT progress toward the achievement of targets
established for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. These boundaries are
to be reported to HPMS in the year the State DOT Baseline Performance
Report is due (required in section 490.107(b)), and are applicable to
the entire performance period (defined in section 490.101 and described
in section 490.105(e)(4)), regardless of whether or not FHWA approved
adjustments to the urbanized area boundary during the performance
period. The FHWA proposes that the State DOT submitted boundary
information would be the authoritative data source for the target scope
for the additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas
(section 490.105(e)(3)), and progress reporting (section 490.107(b))
for the measures identified in section 490.105(c). As discussed in
section 490.105(d)(3), any changes in urbanized area boundaries during
a performance period would not be accounted for until the following
performance period. The FHWA approved urbanized area data available in
HPMS on June 15th (HPMS due date) prior to the due date of the Baseline
Performance Report is to be used for this purpose. For example, State
DOTs shall submit their first Baseline Performance Period Report to
FHWA by October 1, 2018. The FHWA approved urbanized area data
available in HPMS on June 16, 2018, is to be used.
In section 490.103(c), FHWA is proposing that the boundaries for
the nonattainment and maintenance areas be identified for the entire
performance period as they are designated and reported by the EPA under
the NAAQS for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the CMAQ
program.

[[Page 23840]]

The nonattainment and maintenance area would be based on the effective
date of EPA designations as published in the Federal Register at 40 CFR
part 81. States may also want to review EPA's ``Green Book'' \57\ Web
site that provides an easy to search tool by pollutant of EPA
designations and links to the associated Federal Register Notices. The
EPA's ``Green Book'' is updated about twice per year, so States should
also check with their local FHWA division office to ensure they have a
complete list of all nonattainment and maintenance areas for the
performance period. Any changes in the nonattainment or maintenance
areas in a State during a performance period would not be accounted for
until the following performance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ See http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 490.103(d), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would continue
to submit NHS limit data in accordance with HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA
proposed that the State DOT submitted NHS information would be the
authoritative data source for determining measure applicability
(section 490.105(c)), target scope (section 490.105(d)), progress
reporting (section 490.107(b)), and determining significant progress
(section 490.109(d)) for the measures identified in section
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7). As discussed in section 490.105(e)(3)(i),
the NHS limits dataset referenced in the Baseline Performance Report is
to be applied to the entire performance period, regardless of changes
to the NHS approved and submitted to HPMS during the performance
period.
Depending on when the final rule for this proposal is effective,
FHWA plans to determine and publish which State DOTs and MPOs are
required to establish targets for each of the proposed measures in
Subparts C through H 1 year prior to State DOT's reporting of the
targets for the first performance period. The FHWA plans to make the
determination based on the following information: Population data from
the latest Decennial Census from the U.S. Census Bureau, NHS data from
HPMS, and the EPA designated nonattainment and maintenance area
published in the Federal Register at 40 CFR part 81 \58\ at the time of
determination. Based on this information, FHWA plans to publish a list
on its Web site of State DOTs and MPOs meeting the target establishment
requirements for Subparts C-H. Please refer to the discussions for
sections 490.105(d), 490.105(e)(1), and 490.107(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ States may also use EPA's ``Green Book'' (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html) as a reference to check
the status of EPA designations and find links to the associated
Federal Register Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beginning with the second performance period and continuing with
each performance period thereafter, at the start of each performance
period, FHWA will extract the population data from the latest Decennial
Census from the U.S. Census Bureau, NHS data from HPMS, and the EPA
designated nonattainment and maintenance areas published in the Federal
Register at 40 CFR part 81, to determine which State DOTs and MPOs are
required to establish targets for each of the proposed measures in
Subparts C-H, for that performance period. Based on this information,
and at the start of each performance period, FHWA plans to publish a
list on its Web site of State DOTs and MPOs meeting the target
establishment requirements for Subparts C-H.
In section 490.103(e), FHWA is proposing for State DOTs and MPOs to
use the NPMRDS data to calculate the metrics defined in sections
490.511, 490.611, and 490.711 to ensure all data used by State DOTs to
calculate travel time and speed related metrics are consistent and
complete. If more detailed and accurate travel time data exists
locally, FHWA is proposing that this data could be used in place of, or
in combination with the NPMRDS, provided it is first approved by FHWA.
The NPMRDS is a data set that includes travel times representative
of all traffic using the highway system, including a breakdown of
travel times of freight vehicles and passenger vehicles. Travel times
are recorded on contiguous segments of roadway covering the entire
mainline NHS. For the NPMRDS the sources of vehicle probes could
include mobile phones, vehicle transponders, and portable navigation
devices. Within this data set, the average travel time derived from all
vehicle probes traversing each Travel Time Segment is recorded for
every 5 minute period throughout every day of the year. This recorded
average travel time is referenced as being stored in a ``5 minute bin''
in this rulemaking. Travel times are only included in the data set if
during the 5 minute interval vehicle probes were present to measure
travel speeds; consequently, there are no imputed (averaged from
similar historical travel periods or estimated) travel times in the
data set. The NHS data used in the NPMRDS dataset will be extracted
from HPMS on August 15 each year. State DOTs are to provide the
necessary NHS information to HPMS in accordance with the HPMS Field
Manual. States should make every effort to submit NHS data to HPMS in a
timely manner to ensure the NPMRDS dataset is as complete as possible.
The NPMRDS is provided monthly and made available to State DOTs and
MPOs for their use in managing the performance of the highway system.
The FHWA expects to continue to provide for this data at a national
level and to make it available to State DOTs and MPOs to ensure the
data consistency and coverage needed to assess system performance at a
national level.
The FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs and MPOs have developed
robust programs to manage system operations, including collection of
travel time data that may be more appropriate and effective to use as
an alternative source to the NPMRDS. Considering this, FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs and MPOs may utilize alternative data
sources, referred to hereafter as ``equivalent data source(s),'' to
calculate the travel time metrics proposed in this rulemaking provided
the alternative data source is at least ``equivalent'' in the design
and structure of the data as well as extent of coverage both spatially
and temporally to the NPMRDS to ensure for consistency in performance
assessment at a national level. The FHWA expects that the travel time
data set could include a combination of equivalent data source data and
NPMRDS data, as long as the combination covers the full NHS. The FHWA
is also proposing that State DOTs request and receive approval from
FHWA to use equivalent data source(s), to ensure data quality is
maintained. The same travel time data for each travel time segment must
be used by both State DOTs and MPOs in all measure calculation (in
other words, the following must not happen: The State DOT uses NPMRDS
and the MPO uses an equivalent data source for the same travel time
segment). The FHWA expects that State DOTs and MPOs will work
collaboratively to come to agreement on the data sources to use to meet
the requirements proposed in this rulemaking.
The FHWA is proposing in section 490.103(e) that the use of
equivalent data source(s) be requested by State DOTs and approved by
FHWA before the beginning of a performance period. The FHWA anticipates
that State DOTs could change their data source during a performance
period, recognizing that over this period a State DOT may elect to use
an equivalent data source(s) or change back to the NPMRDS based on
future data options, quality, and availability. The FHWA is proposing

[[Page 23841]]

that State DOTs limit requests for the use of equivalent data sources
to no more frequently than once per calendar year, and only include
requests for data to be collected beginning on January 1 of the
calendar year following the request. The request to use equivalent data
source(s) would need to be submitted no later than October 1 prior to
the beginning of the calendar year in which the data would be used to
calculate metrics. The FHWA would need to approve the use of the
equivalent data source(s) prior to implementation and use by a State
DOT.
For example, a State DOT can elect to use the NPMRDS for the first
performance period (anticipated to begin on January 1, 2018). If the
State DOT acquires the resources to collect more accurate and complete
data in 2019, the State DOT would need to submit a request for FHWA's
approval of the equivalent data source(s), including the travel time
segment(s) it is being used on, no later than October 1, 2019, and FHWA
would have to approve its use. The State DOT could then use the FHWA
approved equivalent data source(s) to calculate the travel time and
speed metrics beginning on January 1, 2020.
The FHWA is proposing that for each performance year, the same data
sources (i.e., NPMRDS or equivalent data is used for the same travel
time segments for all referenced measures) be used to calculate the
annual metrics proposed in subparts E, F, and G. The State DOT
reporting of metrics to the HPMS proposed in subparts E, F, and G allow
the State DOT to reference the reporting segments by either the NPMRDS
TMC code or by HPMS location referencing. It is important to note that
if a State DOT elects to use an approved equivalent data source they
would be required to submit metrics using HPMS location referencing as
FHWA would only have the ability to conflate NPMRDS TMC codes to the
HPMS roadway network and not TMC codes used in other travel time data
sources.
The FHWA is proposing for State DOTs to establish, in coordination
with applicable MPOs, and submit reporting segments as discussed in
section 490.103 of this rulemaking. State DOTs and MPOs must use the
same reporting segment for the purposes of calculating the metrics and
measures proposed in subparts E, F, and G.
The State DOT and MPO must use the same reporting segments for all
subparts. Several measures would use the information calculated from
the reporting segments and convert segment length into mileage to
calculate the actual measure, which is described in more detail for
each specific measure.
Reporting segments would be distinct sections of roadway that could
include one or more contiguous travel time segments. This requirement
is being proposed as FHWA anticipates that State DOTs would prefer to
join shorter travel time segments into more logical lengths of roadway
for reporting purposes. To maintain the granularity needed to capture
performance changes, FHWA is proposing that in urbanized areas,
reporting segments would not exceed \1/2\ mile in length unless a
single travel time segment is longer in length, and in non-urbanized
areas, would not exceed 10 miles in length unless a single travel time
segment in the travel time data is longer in length. If a single travel
time segment in the travel time data is longer than a \1/2\ mile in
length in urbanized areas or 10 miles in length in non-urbanized areas,
the reporting segment would be the length of that single travel time
segment.
In order to ensure that the reporting segments cover the complete
NHS within a State, FHWA is proposing that the reporting segments be
continuous and cover the full extent of the mainline highways of the
NHS. The FHWA considered alternative approaches to defining reporting
segments that would represent roadway key corridors to show travel time
performance for the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS. Although
FHWA believes that corridor level evaluations are effective in managing
system operations, we did not feel that a corridor based approach could
be designed and implemented in manner that would provide for the
consistency and reliability needed to report on performance at a State
and national level. For this reason, FHWA is proposing that the
reporting segments represent 100 percent of the mainline highways on
the NHS applicable to the measures in subparts E, F, and G.
Although the State DOTs would be the entity required to submit
reporting segments, MPOs would need to coordinate with State DOTs on
defining these reporting lengths for those roadways that are within the
portion of the metropolitan planning area included within the State
boundary. In addition, it is recommended that States DOTs coordinate
with any local transportation operating agencies that have influence
over the management of traffic operations in making the final decision
on reporting segment lengths.
In section 490.103(g), FHWA is proposing that the State DOT would
submit its reporting segments to FHWA no later than November 1, prior
to the beginning of the calendar year in in which they will be used.
These reporting segments would be used throughout the performance
period. If the State DOT requests and FHWA approves an equivalent
travel time data source during the performance period, the State DOT
would need to submit a new set of reporting segments that would
correspond to the new travel time data source segmentation. These
reporting segments are to be submitted to FHWA by November 1 prior to
the beginning of the calendar year in which they will be used. For the
purposes of carrying out the requirements proposed in Subpart E, FHWA
is proposing that the State DOT submit the travel times desired for
each reporting segment that is fully included within urbanized areas
with populations over 1 million during the peak period travel times
(both morning and evening). The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would
submit reporting segments and the desired travel times to HPMS. The
FHWA intends to issue additional guidance on how State DOTs could
report these data to HPMS. Finally, the State DOT would be required to
submit documentation to demonstrate the applicable MPOs' agreement on
the travel time data set used, the defined reporting segments, and the
desired travel times.
Discussion of Section 490.105 Establishment of Performance Targets
Performance target requirements specific to HSIP-related measures
would be established in accordance with section 490.209 of the first
performance management NPRM; and performance target requirements
specific to pavement condition measures in sections 490.307(a) and
bridge condition measures in sections 490.407(c) are included in the
second performance management NPRM. The discussions specific to those
measures will not be repeated in this NPRM. For additional information,
please see the docket for the proposed regulatory text for Part 490, in
its entirety that covers both prior NRPMs.
The declared policy under 23 U.S.C. 150(a) transforms the Federal-
aid highway program and encourages the most efficient investment of
Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation
goals, increasing accountability and transparency in the Federal-aid
highway program, and improving investment decisionmaking. To this end,
FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to establish targets that would
support the national transportation goals while improving investment
decisionmaking processes.

[[Page 23842]]

A number of considerations were raised during the performance
management stakeholder outreach sessions regarding target
establishment, such as: Providing flexibility for State DOTs and MPOs,
coordinating through the planning process, allowing for appropriate
time for target achievement, and allowing State DOTs and MPOs to
incorporate risks. Using these considerations, FHWA created a set of
principles to develop an approach to implement the target establishment
requirements in MAP-21. These principles aimed to develop an approach
that:
Provides for a new focus for the Federal-aid program on
the MAP-21 national goals under 23 U.S.C. 150(b);
improves investment and strategy decisionmaking;
considers the need for local performance trade-off
decisionmaking;
provides for flexibility in the establishment of targets;
allows for an aggregated view of anticipated condition/
performance; and
considers budget constraints.
In section 490.105, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements for
State DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of targets for all
measures identified in section 490.105(c), which include the proposed
measures both in this performance management NPRM and the second
performance management NPRM. This regulatory text, in its entirety, can
be found in the docket. These requirements are being proposed to
implement the 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) target
establishment provisions in a manner that provides for the consistency
necessary to evaluate and report progress at a State, MPO, and national
level, while also providing a degree of flexibility for State DOTs and
MPOs.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(a) for State DOTs and MPOs to
establish targets for each performance measure identified in section
490.105(c). In section 490.105(b), the performance targets for carrying
out the HSIP would be established in accordance with section 490.209 of
the first performance management NPRM.
In section 490.105(c), FHWA proposes that State DOTs and MPOs that
include, within their respective geographic boundaries, any portion of
the applicable transportation network or projects would establish
performance targets for the performance measures identified in Subparts
C through H. The transportation network or geographic areas applicable
to each measure is specified in Subparts C through H under sections
490.303, 490.403, 490.503, 490.603, 490.703, and 490.803, respectively.
It is possible that for some measures, the applicable transportation
network or geographic area may not be contained within the State or
metropolitan planning area geographic boundary. In these cases State
DOTs and MPOs would not be required to establish targets. The
performance target requirements established by Congress in 23 U.S.C.
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) require State DOTs
and MPOs to establish targets for the measures described in 23 U.S.C.
150(c), where applicable. Consequently, State DOTs and MPOs are only
required to establish targets where their respective geographic
boundary contains portions of the transportation network or geographic
area that are applicable to the measure. For example, the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times specified in section 490.507(a)(1) is applicable, as proposed in
section 490.503(a)(1), to ``mainline highways on the Interstate
System.'' In this example, if Interstate System mainline highways are
not contained within the boundary of an MPO's metropolitan planning
area the measure would not be applicable to that MPO. As a result, that
MPO would not be required to establish a target for the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times specified in section 490.507(a)(1).
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(d)(1) that State DOTs
establish statewide targets that represent performance outcomes of the
transportation network or geographic area within their State boundary,
and MPOs establish targets that represent performance outcomes of the
transportation network or geographic area within their respective
metropolitan planning area for the proposed NHS travel time reliability
measures (section 490.507(a)), freight movement on the Interstate
System measures (section 490.607), and on-road mobile source emissions
measure (section 490.807). State DOTs and, if applicable, MPOs are
encouraged to coordinate their target-establishment with neighboring
States and MPOs to the extent practicable.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(d)(2) that State DOTs and MPOs
would establish a single urbanized area target, as described in
sections 490.105(e)(8) and 490.105(f)(4), respectively, that would
represent the performance of the transportation network in each area
applicable to the peak hour travel time measures (section 490.507(b))
and traffic congestion measure (section 490.707) as proposed in
sections 490.503(a)(2) and 490.703, respectively. The applicable areas
for the peak hour travel time measures are proposed to be urbanized
areas with a population greater than 1 million. A subset of these areas
would be applicable to the traffic congestion measure: Those areas that
also contain any part of an area designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the
CMAQ program. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census,\59\ the peak hour travel
time measures would be applicable to the transportation network in 42
urbanized areas of which 33 of these areas (based on the effective date
of EPA's most recent designations in 40 CFR part 81) would apply to the
traffic congestion measure. The FHWA believes that this proposed
approach of limiting the applicability of the peak hour travel time and
traffic congestion measures is needed to focus performance measurement
and reporting on only those areas in the United States where
transportation demand can have a considerable impact on performance and
where the planning and management of system operations are critical to
the achievement of improved outcomes. The FHWA also believes that the
State DOTs and MPOs in these larger urbanized areas have the experience
and capability needed to meet these performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ Urbanized Area Boundary Data: 2010 TIGER/LINE Shapefile
published by the U.S. Census Bureau (Accessed on 8/7/2013): ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2010/UA/2010/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 490.105(d), FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the
direct impact the State DOT and the MPO can have on the performance
outcomes within the State and the MPO, respectively, and recognizes
that the State DOT and the MPO need to consider this uncertainty when
establishing targets. For example, some Federal and tribal lands
include roads and bridges on the NHS that State DOTs would need to
consider (as appropriate) when establishing targets. The FHWA
anticipates that State DOTs and MPOs would need to consult with
relevant entities (e.g., relevant MPOs, State DOTs, local
transportation agencies, Federal Land Management Agencies, tribal
governments) as they establish targets to better identify and consider
factors outside of their direct control that could impact future
condition/performance.
The FHWA also recognizes that the limits of the NHS could change
between the time of target establishment and the time of progress
evaluation and reporting for the targets for measures specified in
sections 490.105(c)(1)

[[Page 23843]]

through (c)(7). State DOTs may request modifications to the NHS, which
could result in additions, deletions, or relocations. Such changes may
alter the measures reported, which could then impact how an established
target relates to actual measured performance. For example, if NHS
limits are changed after a State DOT establishes the target, actual
measured performance of the transportation network within the changed
NHS limits would represent a different set of highways as compared to
what was originally used to establish the target. This difference could
impact a State DOT's ability to make significant progress for targets.
Thus, for establishing targets for NHS, FHWA believes that it will be
important for the State DOT to ensure that the data used to establish
the targets is accessible, and the information about the data is
properly documented. Consequently, FHWA proposes in section
490.105(d)(3) that State DOTs must declare and describe the extent of
the NHS used for target establishment. The FHWA also proposes that
State DOTs declare and describe their urbanized area boundaries. This
information would be included, along with reporting targets, in the
Baseline Performance Period Report described in section 490.107(b)(1).
These NHS limits and urbanized area boundaries are to be reported to
HPMS in the year the Baseline Performance Report is due, and are
applicable to the entire performance period, regardless of whether or
not FHWA approved adjustments to the NHS limits during the performance
period. Any changes in NHS limits or urbanized area boundaries during a
performance period would not be accounted for until the following
performance period.
In section 490.105(e), FHWA proposes the State DOT requirements for
the establishment of targets for all measures identified in section
490.105(c), with applicable transportation network for those targets
(target scope) defined in section 490.105(d). As defined in section
490.101, a target is a numeric value that represents a quantifiable
level of condition/performance in an expression defined by a measure.
The FHWA proposes that a target would be a single numeric value
representing the intended or anticipated condition/performance level at
a specific point in time. For example, the proposed measure, Percent of
the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times (in section
490.507(a)(1)), would be a percentage of directional mainline highways
on the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times (sections
490.503(a)(1) and 490.513(b)) expressed in one tenth of a percent.
Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for this measure would be a
percentage of directional mainline highways on the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times expressed in one tenth of a
percent. As a hypothetical example, a 2-year target and a 4-year target
would be 39.5 percent and 38.5 percent, respectively for the proposed
measure Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1) and (e), FHWA proposes in section
490.105(e)(1) that State DOTs would establish targets within 1 year of
the effective date of this rule, and for each performance period
thereafter the State DOTs would establish and report the targets to
FHWA by the due date provided in section 490.107(b)(1). The FHWA is
proposing that this rule would have an individual effective date.
Accordingly, FHWA anticipates the final rule for this proposal would be
effective no later than October 1, 2017. This would provide for at
least a 1-year period for States to establish targets so that they can
be reported in the first State Biennial Performance Report which would
be due to FHWA by October 1, 2018. The FHWA recognizes that if the
final rule is effective after October 1, 2017, the due date to report
State DOT targets for the first performance period may need to be
adjusted. If it becomes clear that the final rule will not be effective
until after October 1, 2017, FHWA will consider adjusting the due date
in the final rule or issuing implementation guidance that would provide
State DOTs a 1-year period to establish and report targets.
The proposed schedule would require the establishment and reporting
of targets at the beginning of each performance period or every 4
years. With the exception of the allowance proposed in section
490.105(e)(6), FHWA is proposing that State DOTs will not have the
ability to change targets reported for a performance period.
Considering this proposed limitation, State DOTs would need to provide
for sufficient time to fully evaluate their targets before they are due
to be reported to FHWA.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in section
490.105(e)(2) that State DOTs coordinate with relevant MPOs to
establish consistent targets, to the maximum extent practicable. The
coordination would be accomplished in accordance with 23 CFR 450. The
FHWA recognizes the need for State DOTs and MPOs to have a shared
vision on expectations for future condition/performance in order for
there to be a jointly owned target establishment process. This
coordination is particularly needed for the establishment of the
targets for the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures
since a single target will be established for each applicable \60\
urbanized area that would need to be reported identically by each
applicable State DOT and MPO. Please refer to sections 490.105(e)(8)
and 490.105(f)(4) for discussion on the targets for the peak hour
travel time and traffic congestion measures. The FHWA is seeking
comment on examples of effective State DOT and MPO coordination. The
FHWA is specifically requesting comment on the following questions
related to State DOT and MPO coordination in light of the proposed
performance management requirements in this rule: What obstacles do
States and MPOs foresee to joint coordination in order to comply with
the proposed requirements? What mechanisms currently exist or could be
created to facilitate coordination? What role should FHWA play in
assisting States and MPOs in complying with these proposed new
requirements? What mechanisms exist or could be created to share data
effectively between States and MPOs? Are there opportunities for States
and MPOs to share analytical tools and processes? For those States and
MPOs that already utilize some type of performance management
framework, what are best practices that they can share?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million;
Traffic congestion measure: Urbanized area with a population
greater than 1 million and also any part of the urbanized area is
designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(e)(3) to allow State DOTs to
establish additional targets, beyond the required statewide target, for
any of the proposed measures for the travel time reliability measures
and freight movement on Interstate System measures described in
sections 490.507(a) and 490.607, respectively. This is intended to give
the State DOT flexibility when setting targets and to aid the State DOT
in accounting for differences in urbanized areas and the non-urbanized
area. The State DOT could establish additional targets for any number
and combination of urbanized areas and could establish a target for the
non-urbanized area for any or all of the proposed measures. For
instance, a State DOT could choose to establish additional targets for
a single

[[Page 23844]]

urbanized area, a number of the urbanized areas, or all of the
urbanized areas separately or collectively. For State DOTs that want to
establish a non-urbanized target, it would be a single target that
applies to the non-urbanized area statewide. If the State DOT elects to
establish any additional targets, they need to be declared and
described in the State Biennial Performance Report just after the start
date of a performance period (i.e., Baseline Performance Period
Report). For each additional target established, State DOTs would
evaluate whether they have made progress toward achieving each target
and report on that progress in their biennial performance report in
accordance with sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
The FHWA intends to issue guidance regarding the voluntary
establishment of additional performance targets for urbanized areas and
the non-urbanized area.
As proposed in section 490.105(e)(3)(v), for some measures State
DOTs will not be able to establish additional targets. Since peak hour
travel time measures and traffic congestion measures are proposed to
apply only to certain urbanized areas \61\ (please refer to section
490.105(e)(8) for target establishment discussion for these measures),
it would not be appropriate to have additional targets. In addition,
FHWA anticipates that State DOTs would focus on managing performance
for on-road mobile source emissions for those areas designated as
nonattainment and maintenance areas,\62\ as discussed in section
490.803, regardless of whether those designated areas are located in
urbanized area or in non-urbanized area. Thus, rather than the option
for establishing additional targets for urbanized areas and the non-
urbanized area, FHWA proposes that State DOTs could establish
additional targets for any combination of nonattainment and maintenance
areas for the on-road mobile source emissions measure. Please refer to
section 490.105(e)(9) for target establishment discussion for on-road
mobile source emissions measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million;
Traffic congestion measure: Urbanized area with a population
greater than 1 million and also any part of the urbanized area is
designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program.
\62\ Nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a State DOT chooses to establish additional performance targets,
it would increase the number of performance targets that it reports.
For example, at a minimum, State DOTs would be required to establish
two statewide targets for NHS travel time reliability measures
(separate target for each of the two measures identified in section
490.507(a)). If a State DOT chooses to establish additional targets for
the two NHS travel time reliability measures for the single largest
urbanized area in its State, the State DOT would increase the total
number of NHS travel time reliability targets to four (2 required
targets + 2 additional urbanized area targets = 4).
For each additional target established, State DOTs would evaluate
whether they have made progress toward achieving each target and report
on that progress in their biennial performance report in accordance
with sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
Any additional targets the State DOT chooses to establish would not
be subject to the significant progress assessment in section 490.109.
Because these additional targets are optional and subcomponents of
targets established under section 490.105(d), including them in the
significant progress assessment proposed in section 490.109 could
result in ``double counting'' during that assessment. The FHWA believes
that excluding these additional targets from the significant progress
assessment in section 490.109 provides an opportunity for some
flexibility with respect to establishing the targets and may encourage
State DOTs to establish these additional targets.
Historically, the Census has defined urbanized areas every 10
years, and these boundaries can be adjusted (see 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34)).
The FHWA recognizes that the urbanized area boundaries and resulting
non-urbanized area boundary have the potential to change on varying
schedules. Changing a boundary during a performance period may lead to
changes in the measures reported for the area, and could impact how an
established target relates to actual measured performance. Thus, FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would need to describe the urbanized area
boundaries and the non-urbanized area boundary in place at the start of
a performance period in the Baseline Performance Period Report, and use
those same boundaries throughout a performance period. This will
eliminate the potential for inconsistencies in the extent of the
network used to establish targets and calculate measures in urbanized
areas and the non-urbanized area, and provide consistency in reporting
established targets for those areas.
The urbanized area boundaries are to be reported to HPMS in the
year the Baseline Performance Report is due, and are applicable to the
entire performance period, regardless of whether or not FHWA approved
adjustments to an area boundary during the performance period for other
reasons. Any changes in area boundaries during a performance period
would not be accounted for until the following performance period.
The FHWA is seeking comments on this approach for establishing
optional additional targets for urbanized areas and the non-urbanized
area. The FHWA would also like comments on any other flexibility it
could provide to or identify for State DOTs related to the voluntary
establishment of additional targets. Some examples include:
Providing options for establishing different additional
targets throughout the State, particularly for the States' non-
urbanized area; and
Expanding the boundaries that can be used in establishing
additional targets (e.g., metropolitan planning area boundaries, city
limit boundaries).
As described in section 490.105(f), an MPO would have the option to
establish a quantifiable target for their metropolitan planning area.
As provided in 23 CFR 450.312, the boundaries of the metropolitan
planning area include, at a minimum, the entire existing urbanized area
(as defined by the Census Bureau) plus the contiguous area expected to
become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period. The FHWA recognizes
the challenges in coordinating targets between State DOTs and MPOs,
especially in cases where urbanized and metropolitan planning areas
cross multiple State boundaries. The FHWA intends for State DOTs and
the MPOs to collectively consider boundary differences when
establishing both State DOT and MPO targets. For reporting purposes,
FHWA expects MPOs to report progress to the relevant State DOT for the
entire metropolitan planning area. Multistate MPOs would also be
expected to provide the data stratified by State. The FHWA seeks
comments on target establishment options and coordination methods that
could be used by MPOs and State DOTs in areas where the MPO
metropolitan planning area crosses multiple States.
To illustrate the differences in boundaries and how they might be
addressed for one of the travel time reliability measures, the
following example is provided regarding the target establishment
boundary differences that could exist in the State of Maryland today.
Urbanized Areas: Based on the 2010 Decennial Census, the
State of Maryland

[[Page 23845]]

contains part or all of 11 urbanized areas. Of these urbanized areas, 5
are shared with neighboring States.
Metropolitan Planning Areas: Currently, the State contains
part or all of six metropolitan planning areas. Of these areas, four
metropolitan planning areas are shared with neighboring States (A map
of Metropolitan Planning Areas and Urbanized Areas of the State of
Maryland is included in the docket).
Statewide Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional State
target for the Percentage of Interstate System lane-miles in Good
condition within the State's urbanized areas would represent those
portions of the 11 urbanized areas within the geographic boundary of
the State of Maryland, in aggregate.
Single Urbanized Area Target Extent: An optional urbanized
area target for a single urbanized area would represent the anticipated
Percentage of Interstate System lane-mileage in Good condition within
the identified urbanized area, based on the corresponding boundary
described in the Baseline Performance Period Report. In the case of the
Hagerstown urbanized area, the target would be established for the
portion of the urbanized area in the State of Maryland.
MPO Target Extent: Each of the six MPOs would establish
individual targets for representing the anticipated percentage of the
Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times within their
entire metropolitan planning area, regardless of State boundary. In the
case of the Hagerstown--Eastern Panhandle MPO in Maryland/Pennsylvania/
West Virginia, the MPO would establish target for the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times within its metropolitan planning
boundary that extends beyond Maryland State boundary and into
Pennsylvania and West Virginia State boundaries, while the Maryland DOT
would establish its target for the area only within its State boundary.
The FHWA is seeking comment on alternative approaches that could be
considered to effectively implement 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23
U.S.C. 150(d)(2) considering the need for coordination required under
23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II). The
FHWA is also requesting comment on whether the regulations should
include more information or specificity about how the MPOs and States
should coordinate on target establishment. For some measures proposed
in this NPRM, MPOs could establish targets up to 180 days after the
State DOT establishes its targets.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(e)(4) that State DOTs
establish targets with a 2-year time horizon (i.e., 2-year target) and
a 4-year time horizon (i.e., 4-year target) for each performance
period. For the measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) of
this section, each performance period, defined in section 490.101,
would begin on the January 1 of the year in which the State DOT target
is reported (i.e., State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report
required in section 490.107(b)(1)) to FHWA and would extend for a
duration of 4 years. Additionally, the midpoint of a performance period
would occur 2 calendar years after the beginning of a performance
period. For the on-road mobile source emission measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8) of this section, each performance period would
begin at the start of the Federal fiscal year, on October 1st of the
year prior to which the State DOT target is reported in the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report to FHWA and would extend for a
duration of 4 Federal fiscal years. The midpoint of a performance
period for the on-mobile source emission measure would occur 2 Federal
fiscal years after the beginning of a performance period. For all
measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7), 2-year targets would
represent the anticipated or intended condition/performance level at
the midpoint of each respective performance period, and 4-year targets
would represent the anticipated or intended condition/performance level
at the end of each respective performance period. For the on-road
mobile source emission measure in section 490.105(c)(8), 2-year targets
would represent the anticipated cumulative emissions reduction for the
first 2 years of a performance period, and 4-year targets would
represent the anticipated cumulative emissions reduction for the entire
performance period. Please refer to section 490.105(e)(9) for
discussion on targets for on-road mobile source emission measure. It is
important to emphasize that established targets (2-year and 4-year
targets for all measures in paragraph (c) of this section) would need
to be considered as interim conditions/performance levels that lead
toward the accomplishment of longer-term performance expectations in
the State DOT's long-range statewide transportation plan \63\ and NHS
asset management plans.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ 23 U.S.C. 135(f).
\64\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA is proposing this definitive performance period while
recognizing that planning cycles and time-horizons for long-term
performance expectations differ among State DOTs. The FHWA believes
that although differences exist, it was necessary to utilize a 4-year
performance period considering the following implementation
expectations:
Provide for a link between the interim, short-term targets
(i.e., 2-year and 4-year time horizons) to individual State DOT's long-
term performance expectations as part of performance-based planning and
programming process;
Ensure the time horizon is long enough to allow for
condition/performance change to occur through the delivery of
programmed projects;
Align the schedule of reporting on targets and the
evaluation of progress toward achieving the targets with the biennial
performance reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150(e); and
Report targets using a consistent performance period as
part of the evaluation of the State DOT's effectiveness of performance-
based planning process to the Congress by October 1, 2017, as required
by 23 U.S.C. 135(h).
The FHWA anticipates that the State DOTs would establish targets
for the measures listed in section 490.105(c) and report the
established targets to FHWA by the statutory deadline for the first
biennial report of October 1, 2018.\65\ If the final rule is published
after September 1, 2016, FHWA will publish guidance to assist State
DOTs in complying with Section 150(e) of MAP-21. The FHWA considered a
number of alternatives for a consistent time horizon (i.e., performance
period) across the State DOTs to ensure consistent reporting of targets
and assessment of progress toward achieving those targets for carrying
out the requirements in the statutory provisions.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
\66\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e), 23 U.S.C. 135(h), and 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, FHWA considered the data collection and reporting
cycles associated with proposed measures. For example, the timeframe of
collected data used for calculating a measure for the proposed measures
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) is on a calendar year basis, but
the timeframe of reported data used for calculating a measure for the
proposed on-road mobile source emissions measure in paragraph (c)(8) is
on a Federal fiscal year basis. The FHWA also assessed the inherent
time lag between data collection and target establishment due to
necessary data processing, data quality management,

[[Page 23846]]

data analysis, and other required business processes necessary for
target establishment. The FHWA intends to minimize the time lag between
the end of a performance period and the time of subsequent biennial
performance reporting under 23 U.S.C. 150(e) to ensure a timely
assessment of progress toward achieving the targets. Consequently, FHWA
proposes two different performance periods--one for the measures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) and one for on-road mobile source
emissions measure in paragraph (c)(8). The FHWA proposes that that the
first 4-year performance period start on January 1, 2018, and end on
December 31, 2021, and subsequent performance periods would follow
thereafter, for the measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) and
first 4-year performance period start on October 1, 2017, and end on
September 30, 2021, and subsequent performance periods would follow
thereafter, for the measures in paragraph (c)(8). As indicated
previously, FHWA plans to align performance periods for the proposed
measures in this NPRM (measures in paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(7) and
the measures proposed in the second performance management measure NPRM
\67\ (measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3)). Diagrams for
proposed performance periods for target establishment, condition/
performance measure data collection and assessment, and biennial
performance reporting are exhibited in Figures 1 and 2. Please see
section 490.107(a)(4) for discussion on the Initial State Performance
Report, which is due on October 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the National Performance
Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National
Highway Performance Program 80 FR 2014-30085 (published January 5,
2015) http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-05/pdf/2014-30085.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.000

[[Page 23847]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.001

As shown in Figure 1, for the first performance period for all
measures except on-road mobile source emissions measure in paragraph
(c)(8), the latest measured condition/performance data through December
31, 2017, is the baseline condition/performance. The State DOTs would
establish 2-year targets as the condition/performance anticipated at a
midpoint, which would be indicated by the latest measured condition/
performance data through the midpoint of the performance period
(December 31, 2019, for the first performance period). Similarly, the
State DOTs would establish 4-year targets as the condition/performance
anticipated at the end of a performance period which would be indicated
by the latest measured condition/performance data through the end of
the performance period (December 31, 2021, for the first performance
period). The FHWA recognizes that the previously programmed projects
may have an impact on the target a State DOT establishes for the first
performance period. State DOTs should consider the impact of previously
programmed projects on future performance outcomes when establishing
their targets.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the latest 4-year cumulative emissions
reductions results from CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2014 through
fiscal year 2017, is the baseline condition/performance. For the first
performance period for the on-road mobile source emissions measure,
State DOTs would establish 2-year targets which would reflect the
anticipated cumulative emissions reductions resulting from CMAQ
projects to be reported in the CMAQ Public Access System (described in
section 490.809) for the Federal fiscal years 2018 and 2019. Thus, the
2-year target would be the anticipated sum of total emission reductions
in the CMAQ Public Access System for the Federal fiscal years 2018 and
2019 for each criteria pollutant and applicable precursors for which
the area is nonattainment or maintenance. Similarly, the State DOTs
would establish 4-year targets as the anticipated cumulative emissions
reductions resulting from CMAQ projects to be reported in the CMAQ
Public Access System for the Federal fiscal years 2018 through 2021.
Thus, the 4-year target would be the anticipated sum of total emission
reductions in the CMAQ Public Access System for the Federal fiscal
years 2018 through 2021 for each criteria pollutant and applicable
precursors for which the area is nonattainment or maintenance. Similar
to other measures, FHWA recognizes that the previously programmed CMAQ
projects may have an impact on target a State DOT establishes for the
first performance period. State DOTs should consider the impact of
previously programmed CMAQ projects on future performance outcomes when
establishing their targets.
It is important to note that the timeframe of collected data used
for calculating a measure depends on the individual measure. Data
collection frequency requirements and the timeframe for when State DOTs
and MPOs would collect data used for calculating a measure are proposed
in the Data Requirement and Calculation of Performance Measure Sections
for each measure in the relevant Subparts. This proposed timeline,
depicted in Figures 1 and 2, is intended to: (1) Satisfy the first
State DOT biennial performance

[[Page 23848]]

report due on October 1, 2018, as described in the discussion on
section 490.107; (2) accommodate data collection cycles and the
timeframe for when State DOTs and MPOs would collect data used for
calculating a measure; and (3) minimize the time lag between the end/
midpoint of a performance period and the following biennial performance
reporting date, as described in the discussion sections in 490.107 and
490.109. Baseline condition and target establishment for subsequent
performance periods would follow a similar timeline as the first
performance period. The proposed 2-year and 4-year targets are timed so
that the targets are on the same cycle as the biennial report under 23
U.S.C. 150(e), and are also necessary for FHWA to determine the
significant progress for NHPP and NHFP targets as required under 23
U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23 U.S.C. 167(j). The FHWA must make this
determination every 2 years, after a State DOT submits each biennial
report.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(e)(5) that State DOTs report
their established targets (2-year and 4-year) and progress toward
achieving their targets in the biennial performance report required by
23 U.S.C. 150(e) as specified in section 490.107. As discussed in
section 490.105(e)(2), State DOT coordination with relevant MPOs is
required for selection of targets. Thus, FHWA proposes that the State
DOTs would be able to provide relevant MPOs' targets to FHWA, upon
request, each time the relevant MPOs establish or adjust MPO targets as
described in section 490.105(f).
The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs would need to consider many
factors in establishing targets that could impact progress such as
uncertainties in funding, changing priorities, and external factors
(see section 490.109(e)(5)) outside the control of the State DOTs.
Thus, FHWA proposes in section 490.105(e)(6) that State DOTs may
adjust their established 4-year targets when they submit their State
Biennial Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance
period (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in
section 490.107(b)(2)). This target adjustment allowance would be
limited to this specific report and not be allowed at any other time
during the performance period. The FHWA feels that this frequency of
adjustment allows a State DOT to address changes they could not have
foreseen in the initial establishment of 4-year targets while still
maintaining a sufficient level of control in the administrative
procedure necessary to carry out these program requirements in an
equitable manner. For example, the 4-year target established in 2018
(the 1st State Biennial Performance Report illustrated in Figures 1 and
2) may be adjusted in 2020 (2nd State Biennial Performance Report
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2). The State DOT would report and justify
this adjusted target in the second State Biennial Performance Report
due in October 2020 (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report). As
discussed in section 490.105(d)(2) of this section, FHWA proposes that
State DOTs and MPOs would establish a single urbanized area \68\
target, as described in section 490.105(e)(8), that would represent the
performance of the transportation network in each area applicable to
the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures. Thus, FHWA
proposes that any adjustments made to 4-year targets established for
the peak hour travel time and/or traffic congestion measures would be
agreed upon and made collectively by all State DOTs and MPOs that
include any portion of the NHS in the respective urbanized area
applicable to the measure. The details of reporting requirements for
adjusting a target are discussed in section 490.107(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ Peak hour travel time measure: Urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million; Traffic congestion measure:
Urbanized area with a population greater than 1 million and also any
part of the urbanized area is designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants applicable under the
CMAQ Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 490.105(e)(7), FHWA proposes a phase-in for the
establishment of targets for the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure, provided in section 490.507(a)(2). This phase-in
would require only State DOTs to establish 4-year targets for the first
performance period for this measure (reported in the 1st State Biennial
Performance Report as illustrated in Figure 1) for non-Interstate NHS
travel time reliability measure, provided in section 490.507(a)(2). The
FHWA is proposing this phase-in to allow sufficient time for State DOTs
and MPOs to become more proficient in managing performance of non-
Interstate roadways and for the coverage of the data, during peak
periods, to become more complete in the NPMRDS. At the midpoint of the
first performance period State DOTs would have the option to adjust the
4-year targets they established at the beginning of the performance
period in their State Biennial Performance Report (report due in
October 2020 as illustrated in Figure 1). This will allow State DOTs to
consider more complete data in their decision on the 4-year targets for
non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability. Although 2-year targets
would not be established in the first performance period, FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs still would report metrics annually, as
required in section 490.511(d)), for the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure.
Similarly FHWA is proposing to phase-in the reporting of baseline
travel time reliability performance for the non-Interstate NHS travel
time reliability measure. The FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
report baseline performance in the 2nd State Biennial Performance
Report in 2020 (instead of the 1st report due in 2018) for non-
Interstate NHS travel time reliability. This baseline would represent
the performance through the end of 2019 (i.e., 2-year condition/
performance). Also, as State DOTs would not be establishing 2-year
targets for non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability, FHWA will not
evaluate performance progress at the midpoint of the first performance
period (discussed further in section 490.109(e)(3)) for this measure.
In section 490.105(e)(8), as discussed in sections 490.507(b) and
490.707, FHWA proposes that the peak hour travel time measure would
apply to the roadway transportation network in urbanized areas with a
population over 1 million and the traffic congestion measure would
include these same areas that also contain areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance areas for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable under the CMAQ program. The FHWA proposes that State DOTs,
with mainline highways on the Interstate System that cross any part of
an urbanized area with a population more than 1 million within its
geographic State boundary, would establish a target for peak-hour
travel time for the Interstate System for that urbanized area.
Similarly, FHWA proposes that State DOTs, with mainline highways on the
non-Interstate NHS that cross any part of an urbanized area with a
population more than 1 million within its geographic State boundary,
would establish a target for peak-hour travel time for the non-
Interstate NHS for that urbanized area. The FHWA proposes that if a
State DOT is required to establish targets for either of the peak hour
travel time measures for an urbanized area and that urbanized area
contains any part of a nonattainment or maintenance area for any one of
the criteria pollutants, as specified in section 490.703, then that
State DOT would also be required establish targets

[[Page 23849]]

for the traffic congestion measure. For instance, if a State is in
attainment for the applicable criteria pollutants, but that State is
part of a multistate urbanized area with more than 1 million in
population and another part of that urbanized area contains an
applicable nonattainment or maintenance area then the State that is in
attainment would be required to work with the other States and
establish a traffic congestion target.
In deciding to limit the applicability of these performance
measures, FHWA considered a number of factors. In general, the boundary
limits of large urbanized areas are representative of population size
and density. The FHWA believes that the need to plan for and manage
transportation demand is greatest in areas of the country where
populations are high and more densely located. The FHWA also believes
that in these largest urbanized areas State DOTs and MPOs have the
experience and capability needed to plan and manage high levels of
transportation demand. For these reasons, FHWA is proposing, as
discussed in Subparts E and G, an approach to limit the applicability
of the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures to only
those roadway networks that are contained in very large urbanized
areas. The FHWA believes that the MAP-21 statewide and metropolitan
target establishment provisions \69\ only require State DOTs and MPOs
to establish targets where the measure is applicable to them. Because
some State DOTs and MPOs do not include these very large urbanized
areas, it is highly likely that those State DOTs and MPOs would not be
required to establish targets for the peak hour travel time and traffic
congestion measures. Based on the 2010 Decennial U.S. Census \70\ and a
recent EPA designation \71\ of nonattainment and maintenance areas,
there are 42 urbanized areas in the country where the population is
greater than 1 million and of these 33 are designated as nonattainment
or maintenance areas. Using these boundaries, 35 State DOTs and 67 MPOs
\72\ would be required to establish targets for peak hour travel time
measures and 33 State DOTs and 42 MPOs would be required to establish a
target for the traffic congestion measure. Based on the data available,
FHWA has estimated the State DOTs and MPOs who might be affected by
proposed peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures. A list
\73\ of those State DOTs and MPOs is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ Target establishment provisions: Statewide 23
U.S.C.135(d)(2)(B)(i)(I); Metropolitan 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I).
\70\ Urbanized Area Boundary Data: 2010 TIGER/LINE Shapefile
published by the U.S. Census Bureau (Accessed on 8/7/2013): ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2010/UA/2010/ Population Data for
Urbanized Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html.
\71\ The status of the nonattainment/maintenance areas was
verified on 5/1/2015 based on EPA's Green Book (updated on April 14,
2015): http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_download.html.
\72\ Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA HEPGIS (Accessed on
10/15/2015): http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/
ViewMap.aspx?map=MPO+Boundaries[verbar]MPO+Boundary#.
\73\ Documents ``Peak Hour Travel Time Measure States and
MPOs.pdf'' and ``CMAQ Measure States and MPOs.pdf'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA is proposing that the applicable areas would be determined
at the beginning of a performance period and remain for the duration of
the performance period regardless of changes that could result from
U.S. Census or EPA designation changes during the performance period.
As population continues to grow there will be an increased
potential for large urbanized areas to extend across State borders and/
or metropolitan planning area boundaries necessitating an increased
level of coordination of multiple entities to plan for and manage
transportation demand. The FHWA believes that State DOTs and MPOs
should collectively work together to support a common transportation
performance vision for the area. The FHWA also believes that, through
congestion management planning being done by MPOs serving a TMA as part
of the planning process,\74\ an increased level of coordination is
occurring today, especially in the largest urbanized areas across the
country. For this reason, FHWA is proposing in section 490.105(e)(8)
that a single, unified target for each of the peak hour travel time
measures and a single, unified target for the traffic congestion
measure be established for each applicable urbanized area in the
country. For each of these urbanized areas, the peak hour travel time
and traffic congestion targets would be collectively established by all
State DOTs and MPOs that have, within their respective boundaries, any
portion of the applicable roadway network in the applicable urbanized
area. Consequently, the 2-year and 4-year targets established for peak
hour travel time and traffic congestion measures would be reported
identically by each State DOT and MPO in the applicable area. Also,
under the proposed approach, any adjustments to the 4-year target would
be made for the entire applicable urbanized area; resulting in
identical reporting of the adjustment by each State DOT and MPO in the
applicable areas. For example, based on the most recent U.S. Census,
four State DOTs and four MPOs have non-Interstate NHS mileage within
their respective boundaries that are contained within or cross into the
Philadelphia Urbanized Area. Although the share of the non-Interstate
NHS network varies considerably among the eight entities, each would be
required to report the same target that would be developed through a
coordinated approach, for the Philadelphia Urbanized Area. In this area
any adjustments to the target would also need to be made and agreed
upon by all eight entities. The FHWA considered separate State DOT and
MPO targets for their share of the transportation network within an
urbanized area for the targets for the peak hour travel time and
traffic congestion measures. However, FHWA believes that performances
related to peak hour travel time and traffic congestion within each
entity's geographic boundary within an urbanized area would heavily
impact the performances of the surrounding entities in that urbanized
area. To encourage an increased level of coordination for effectively
managing transportation demand of an urbanized area for these measures,
FHWA is proposing a single target for each applicable urbanized area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ See 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State DOTs and MPOs would also be required to establish targets for
peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures for more than one
urbanized area if their respective boundaries intersect or include
multiple applicable urbanized areas. For example, based on the most
recent U.S. Census, Maryland DOT would be required to establish targets
for three applicable urbanized areas: Baltimore, Washington, DC, and
Philadelphia. As discussed above, the targets established for these
three areas would be shared by the other applicable State DOTs and
MPOs.
In section 490.105(e)(8)(vi), FHWA proposes a phase-in for the
establishment of targets for the traffic congestion measure in section
490.707. As discussed previously for the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability targets, this phase-in is being proposed to provide
sufficient time for State DOTs and MPOs to become more proficient in
managing traffic congestion performance and for the travel time data
coverage to be more complete in the NPMRDS. The proposed traffic
congestion measure requires complete data coverage to capture all
excessive delay occurrences throughout the day at a 5-minute level of
granularity. In addition, as indicated in section

[[Page 23850]]

490.711, the metric for the proposed traffic congestion measure
requires the integration of travel time and traffic volume datasets.
For these reasons, FHWA believes more time is needed before State DOTs
and MPOs can reliably establish meaningful targets for traffic
congestion.
The FHWA is aware that the NPMRDS will be lacking data on the non-
Interstate NHS roadways in the short-term (missing data is discussed in
a white paper provided on the docket). If 2-year targets were to be
established in the first performance period, the NPMRDS will be lacking
data on the non-Interstate NHS roadways. The FHWA anticipates that
enough data would be missing to make it difficult for States to
establish reasonable targets. By the time the 2-year condition/
performance are calculated, FHWA expects the NPMRDS data to have
improved to an acceptable level for this measure. Also, States would
have time to understand the impact of missing data on target
establishment. Full compliance is required starting from the second
performance period. Thus, FHWA proposes that for the first performance
period, as with the non-Interstate travel time reliability measure,
State DOTs would only be required to establish their 4-year targets for
the traffic congestion measure in the beginning of the first
performance period (i.e., the 1st State Biennial Performance Report in
2018 illustrated in Figure 1) for the traffic congestion measure. If
necessary, State DOTs would adjust their established 4-year targets at
the midpoint of the first performance period (i.e., the 2nd State
Biennial Performance Report in 2020 illustrated in Figure 1) as
described in section 490.105(e)(6). Although 2-year targets would not
be established in the first performance period, FHWA is proposing that
State DOTs still would report metrics annually, as required in section
490.711(f).
For the first performance period only, the baseline traffic
congestion performance would be reported by the State DOT at the
midpoint of the performance period in their 2nd State Biennial
Performance Report in 2020 (illustrated in Figure 1). This baseline
report would represent traffic congestion performance through 2019
(i.e., 2-year condition/performance).
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(e)(9) the State DOT target
establishment requirements for the proposed on-road mobile source
emission measure, identified in section 490.807. In paragraph (i) of
this section, FHWA proposes that State DOTs would establish a statewide
target for all areas within the State geographic boundaries designated
as nonattainment or maintenance for the O3, CO, or PM
(PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS.
In section 490.105(e)(9)(ii), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would
establish separate statewide targets for each of the applicable
criteria pollutant and precursor (PM2.5, PM10,
CO, VOC and NOX) for which the State is designated as
nonattainment or maintenance, as described in section 490.807.
As proposed in section 490.105(e)(4)(iii) and (e)(4)(iv), the 2-
year targets for this measure would reflect the anticipated cumulative
emissions reduction to be reported for the first 2 years of a
performance period by (i.e., total emissions reduced for 2 fiscal
years) pollutant and precursor. The 4-year target would reflect
anticipated cumulative emissions reduction to be reported for the
entire performance period (i.e., total emissions reduced for 4 fiscal
years) by pollutant and precursor.
To implement the flexibility in 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that provides
State DOTs the option for establishing different targets for different
areas of the State and in consideration of the measure that FHWA is
proposing for on-road mobile source emissions, FHWA proposes in section
490.105(e)(9)(iv) that State DOTs would have the option of establishing
additional targets, beyond the statewide targets, for any number and
combination of nonattainment and maintenance areas by applicable
criteria pollutant and precursors. For instance, a State DOT could
choose to establish additional targets for a single nonattainment and
maintenance area and a single applicable criteria pollutant or
precursor, a number of areas and applicable pollutants or precursors,
or each of the areas and applicable pollutants or precursors
separately. A State DOT that has multiple nonattainment and maintenance
areas for multiple criteria pollutants could decide to establish a
target for one of the areas and for only one of the applicable
pollutants or precursors within that area. If a State DOT decides to
establish these additional targets, the requirements for these targets
are similar to those provided in section 490.105(e)(3). The additional
targets would need to be described in the State Baseline Performance
Period Report. For each additional target, State DOTs would evaluate
whether they have made progress toward achieving the target and report
on that progress in their biennial performance report in accordance
with sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
In sections 490.105(e)(9)(v) and (e)(9)(vi), FHWA proposes that the
State DOT's requirement for establishing target(s) for on-road mobile
source emission measure would be by the EPA's nonattainment and
maintenance areas designations published in the Federal Register in 40
CFR part 81 at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA. States may also use EPA's ``Green Book'' Web
site \75\ to check the status of EPA designations. States should also
check with their local FHWA division office to ensure they have a
complete list of all nonattainment and maintenance areas for the
performance period. These designations would be used for the duration
of the performance period regardless of subsequent change in
designation status during that performance period. In section
490.105(e)(9)(vii), FHWA proposes that if a State geographic boundary
does not contain any part of areas designated by the EPA as
nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable to the CMAQ Program at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA, then that State DOT is not
require to establish targets for on-road mobile source emissions
measures for that performance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ See http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although both traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emission
measures are proposed to carry out the CMAQ Program, there are some
differences in how the targets for the measures would be implemented.
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(8), the targets for the traffic
congestion measure would apply to the NHS roadway network in urbanized
areas with a population over 1 million that also contain areas
designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria
pollutants applicable under the CMAQ Program where as the targets for
on-road mobile source emission measure would apply to all nonattainment
or maintenance areas for any of the criteria pollutants applicable
under the CMAQ Program as discussed in section 490.105(e)(9). The FHWA
also proposes that a single, unified target for traffic congestion
measure would be established for each applicable urbanized area in the
country; whereas target(s) for the on-road mobile source emission
measure would be bounded by State geographic boundaries and
nonattainment or maintenance areas.

[[Page 23851]]

Additionally, as discussed in section 490.105(e)(4), the performance
period for the traffic congestion measure would be on a calendar year
basis whereas the performance period for the on-road mobile source
emission measure would be on a Federal fiscal year basis. Even though
there are differences between these measures, FHWA believes both of
these measures support two goals of the CMAQ Program: To improve air
quality and relieve congestion. Both of these measures also are
consistent with the National Goals of environmental sustainability and
congestion reduction (23 U.S.C. 150(a)(3) and (a)(6)). In section
490.105(f), FHWA proposes MPO requirements for the establishment of
targets for all measures identified in section 490.105(c). These
requirements are being proposed to implement the 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)
target establishment provisions in a manner that provides for a level
of consistency necessary to evaluate and report progress at an MPO and
national level while providing for a degree of flexibility to support
metropolitan planning needs. The FHWA also attempted to develop these
target establishment requirements so that they could be met by all
MPOs, recognizing that MPOs currently vary in capability, resource
availability, and ability to establish performance targets. Given these
considerations, FHWA is proposing that MPOs would be required,
depending on the measure, to establish both 2-year and 4-year targets
or only 4-year targets.
As part of the MPO-State DOT coordination in establishing State DOT
and MPO targets described in the discussion of sections 490.105(e)(2)
and 490.105(f)(2), FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1) that MPOs
establish targets with a 4-year performance period identical to the
State DOT's performance periods discussed in the Section-by-Section
Discussion for 490.101 and 490.105(e)(4). It is important to emphasize
that established MPO targets must be considered as interim conditions/
performance levels that lead toward the accomplishment of longer-term
performance expectations in the MPO's Metropolitan Transportation Plan
\76\ and relevant State DOT NHS asset management plans.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i).
\77\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1)(i) that each MPO would
establish 4-year targets for all applicable measures in section
490.105(c) no later than 180 days after the relevant State DOT
establishes its targets, described in the discussion of section
490.105(e)(1).\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ 23 U.S.C.134(h)(2)(C) requires that an MPO establish
targets 180 days after the relevant State DOT establishes its
target, but does not require that the MPO establish the same number
of targets as the State. For certain measures, even where a State
DOT is establishing a 2-year and a 4-year target at the start of a
performance period, FHWA is proposing that MPOs would only need to
establish a 4-year target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1)(ii) that the MPOs with
any portion of the applicable roadway network in an urbanized area with
a population greater than 1 million would establish both 2-year and 4-
year targets for the peak hour travel time measures, as described in
section 490.105(f)(4)(i). In addition, the MPOs that have any portion
of the applicable roadway network in an urbanized area with a
population greater than 1 million and contain areas designated as
nonattainment or maintenance would establish both 2-year and 4-year
targets for the traffic congestion measure, as described in section
490.105(f)(4)(ii). The FHWA is proposing this approach because, as
discussed section 490.105(e)(8), 2-year and 4-year targets established
for peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures would
represent the entire urbanized area, and State DOTs and MPOs would
report identical targets for each of the applicable urbanized areas. In
addition, for the traffic congestion measure, the requirement to have
targets every 2 years is consistent with the requirement for these MPOs
to report on this target every 2 years under the performance plan
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
For the on-road mobile source emissions measure, whether an MPO
must establish 2-year and 4-year targets or would only be required to
establish a 4-year target depends on if the MPO is in an urbanized area
with a population greater than 1 million and contains areas designated
as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants
applicable to the CMAQ program. An MPO in one of these large urbanized
areas would be required to establish both 2-year and 4-year targets for
the on-road mobile source emissions measure, as provided in section
490.105(f)(5)(iii). An MPO outside of these large urbanized areas would
only be required to establish a 4-year target for the on-road mobile
source emissions measure, as required by section 490.105(f)(1)(i); it
would not be required to establish a 2-year target as provided in
section 490.105(f)(1)(ii). In proposing this approach, FHWA considered
that the MPOs in a larger urbanized area would be required to do
biennial reporting on these targets under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
The FHWA recognizes the burden on MPOs, regardless of size, to
establish targets. In addition, MPOs are not directly subject to the
requirement to evaluate the progress toward achieving NHPP and NHFP
targets under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23 U.S.C. 167(j). As a result,
FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(1)(iii) that MPOs would not be
required to establish 2-year targets for the NHS travel time
reliability measures and freight movement on Interstate System
measures.
In the case of the first performance period, FHWA anticipates that
the State DOTs would establish targets for the measures listed in
section 490.105(c) prior to the first State DOT biennial performance
report, and the MPOs would establish targets no later than 180 days
thereafter. The timeline for target establishment for State DOTs is
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 in the discussion of section
490.105(e)(4). The FHWA recognizes that the previously programmed
projects may have an impact on the target an MPO establishes for the
first performance period. The MPOs should consider the impact of
previously programmed projects on future performance outcomes when
establishing their targets. As discussed in section 490.105(e)(4), FHWA
recognizes that if the final rule is effective after September 30,
2017, the due date to report State DOT targets for the first
performance period may need to be adjusted. If the rule is effective on
or after September 30, 2017, MPOs may not have the opportunity to
establish their own targets in time for State DOTs to consider those
MPO targets when submitting the 1st Baseline Performance Period Report.
If it becomes clear that the final rule will not be effective until
after September 30, 2017, FHWA will consider adjusting the due date in
the final rule or issuing implementation guidance that would provide
State DOTs a 1-year period and MPOs 180 days thereafter to establish
and report targets. The MPOs would be required to establish targets for
all applicable measures.
Similar to the requirement for State DOTs, pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(2) that MPOs
coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) to establish consistent targets,
to the maximum extent practicable. This would be done in accordance
with 23 CFR 450.
The FHWA recognizes the burden on the MPOs to establish their own
performance targets. Consequently, as proposed, the MPOs would have the

[[Page 23852]]

flexibility to establish their targets using one of the two options.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(3) that, for most of the
measures, MPOs would establish targets, specific to the metropolitan
planning area, by either: (1) Agreeing to plan and program projects so
that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant State
DOT target, or (2) committing to a quantifiable target for their
metropolitan planning area. This proposal would give MPOs two options
to establish targets. The MPOs could establish their own quantifiable
targets. Alternatively, recognizing that the resource level and
capability of some MPOs to reliably predict performance outcomes varies
across the country, FHWA is proposing an approach that would allow MPOs
that do not want to establish their own quantifiable target to
establish targets by supporting the State DOT targets for performance.
The MPOs would do this through their investment decisionmaking process.
Regardless of which option MPOs use to establish targets, FHWA
recognizes that the MPOs may need to work with relevant State DOTs to
coordinate, plan, and program projects for their planning area.
However, these MPO target establishment options would not be
available for MPOs subject to the peak hour travel time or the traffic
congestion measures because FHWA has proposed that MPOs and the State
DOTs subject to these measures establish identical targets. Also those
MPO target establishment options would not be available for certain
MPOs \79\ for the on-road mobile source emissions measure as those MPOs
are required to commit to their targets for the entire subject area
under 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ MPOs in an urbanized area with a population greater than 1
million that contain areas designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants applicable to the
CMAQ program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed previously, FHWA is proposing that MPOs establish
targets for the peak hour travel time and traffic congestion measures
for applicable urbanized areas. The FHWA proposes that MPOs, with
mainline highways on the Interstate System that cross any part of an
urbanized area with a population more than 1 million within its
metropolitan planning area boundary, would establish a target for peak-
hour travel time for the Interstate System for that urbanized area.
Similarly, FHWA proposes that MPOs, with mainline highways on the non-
Interstate NHS that cross any part of an urbanized area with a
population more than 1 million within its metropolitan planning area
boundary, would establish a target for peak-hour travel time for the
non-Interstate NHS for that urbanized area.
The FHWA proposes an MPO would establish targets for the traffic
congestion measure when mainline highways on the NHS within that MPO's
metropolitan planning area boundary cross any part of an urbanized area
with a population more than 1 million, and that portion of the
metropolitan planning area boundary intersecting the urbanized area
also includes a nonattainment or maintenance area for any one of the
criteria pollutants, as specified in section 490.703. If an MPO's
metropolitan planning area boundary overlaps with an urbanized area
where a traffic congestion target is required but that MPO is not
required to establish the traffic congestion target, then the MPO
should coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) and MPO(s) in the target
selection process for the traffic congestion measure. The FHWA is
proposing in section 490.105(f)(4) that MPOs would be subject to the
same requirements as State DOTs for the establishment of a single peak
hour travel time target and a single traffic congestion target. This
would require MPOs to establish both 2-year and 4-year targets that
would be identical to the targets reported by other State DOTs and MPOs
that share in roadway network for the applicable urbanized area. The
proposed language is similar to the proposal for State DOT targets for
these measures in section 490.105(e)(8). It is possible that an MPO
could be required to establish more than 1 peak hour travel time or
traffic congestion target if the boundary of the respective
metropolitan planning area includes applicable roadways that are in
multiple, separate applicable urbanized areas. Based on the data
available \80\ at this time, FHWA has prepared a list \81\ of the State
DOTs and MPOs which might be affected by proposed peak hour travel time
and traffic congestion measures and included this list in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA HEPGIS (Accessed on
5/1/2015): http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/ViewMap.aspx?map=MPO+Boundaries|MPO+Boundary#. The
nonattainment/maintenance status of the MPOs areas was verified on
5/1/2015 based on EPA's Green Book (updated on April 14, 2015):
http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_download.html. Population
Data for Urbanized Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html.
\81\ Documents ``Peak Hour Travel Time Measure States and
MPOs.pdf'' and ``CMAQ Measure States and MPOs.pdf'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 490.105(f)(4)(iv), FHWA proposes the same requirements
be applied to MPOs for the traffic congestion target as required for
State DOTs in sections 490.105(e)(8)(vi)(A) and (e)(8)(vi)(B), which
would require only 4-year targets to be established for the first
performance period. This will provide additional time needed for MPOs
to become more proficient in the management of traffic congestion and
for travel time data coverage to be more complete within the NPMRDS.
Please see discussion for section 490.105(e)(8)(vi) for more details.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(5) MPO target establishment
requirements for the proposed on-road mobile source emission measure,
identified in section 490.807. The proposed language is similar to the
proposal for State DOT targets for these measures in 490.105(e)(9). In
section 490.105(f)(5)(i), FHWA proposes that MPOs would establish
targets for each applicable criteria pollutant (and precursor
(PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC and NOX) for
which the area is designated as nonattainment or maintenance under the
NAAQS.
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(9), the MPOs would adhere to the
Federal fiscal year based performance periods for the on-road mobile
source emissions targets. In paragraph (ii) of this section, FHWA
proposes that the MPOs would establish targets as discussed in section
490.105(e)(9)(iii).
In section 490.105(f)(5)(iii), FHWA proposes that if any part of
the nonattainment or maintenance area within a metropolitan planning
area for any one of the applicable criteria pollutants is located
within the boundary of an urbanized area with a population more than 1
million in population, then that MPO would establish both 2-year and 4-
year targets for its metropolitan planning area.
In section 490.105(f)(5)(iv), FHWA proposes that a nonattainment or
maintenance area within a metropolitan planning area for any one of the
applicable criteria pollutants is not located within the boundary of an
urbanized area with a population more than 1 million in population,
then that MPO would not be required to establish a 2-year target and
would only establish both 4-year targets for its metropolitan planning
area as required in section 490.105(f)(3).
In section 490.105(f)(5)(v) and (f)(5)(vi), FHWA proposes the same
requirements be applied to MPOs for the on-road mobile source emission
target as required for State DOTs in sections 490.105(e)(9)(v) and
(e)(9)(vi). In section 490.105(f)(5)(vii), FHWA proposes language for
the MPOs that is similar to

[[Page 23853]]

the State DOT provision in section 490.105(e)(9)(vii).
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(9), both traffic congestion and
on-road mobile source emission measures are proposed to carry out the
CMAQ Program, but there are some differences in how the targets for the
measures are to be implemented. Please refer to the discussion for
section 490.105(e)(9) for a summary of differences.
As stated in the section 490.105(e)(6) discussion, State DOTs may
adjust their established 4-year targets when they submit their State
Biennial Performance Report just after the midpoint of the performance
period (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in
section 490.107(b)(2)). The MPOs are required to establish targets 180
days after the date on which the relevant State DOT(s) establishes
their targets, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(C). If a State DOT
adjusts a target, as allowed under the proposed sections 490.105(e)(6)
and 490.107(b)(2), any relevant MPOs would be required to also re-
establish targets for the same measures within 180 days. However, FHWA
is proposing that the MPO only be required to re-establish the target
if the MPO had originally elected to establish a target supporting the
State DOT target for that measure in section 490.105(f)(3). In that
case, the adjusted State target could directly impact an MPO's
investment decisionmaking. Specifically, FHWA proposes in section
490.105(f)(7) that if a State DOT adjusts its 4-year target in the
State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report and the MPO
established the relevant target by supporting the State DOT target as
allowed under section 490.105(f)(3), then the MPO would be required,
within 180 days, to report to the State DOT if they either: (1) Agree
to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the
accomplishment of State DOT adjusted target, or (2) commit to its own
quantifiable 4-year target for the metropolitan planning area. Since a
single, unified peak hour travel time target and a single, unified
traffic congestion target would be established for each applicable
urbanized area as discussed in section 490.105(e)(8), FHWA expects that
if either of these 4-year targets need adjustment, all involved MPO(s)
and State DOT(s) would collectively adjust target(s) in a manner that
is documented and mutually agreed upon by all State DOTs and MPOs.
As with State DOTs, FHWA recognizes that MPOs would need to
consider many factors in establishing targets, such as uncertainties in
funding, changing priorities, and external factors outside the control
of the MPO. Thus, FHWA proposes in section 490.105(f)(8) that MPOs may
adjust their established 4-year target in a manner that is consistent
with the process MPOs and State DOTs agreed upon. The FHWA recognizes
that for many MPOs the establishment of targets, especially for the
first performance period, would be new and challenging and that there
may be a need to revisit targets during the 4-year performance period.
The FHWA requires State DOTs and MPOs to coordinate with each other
throughout the performance period with respect to any target
adjustments so their targets are consistent to the maximum extent
practicable.
In section 490.105(f), FHWA proposes that the method by which MPOs
would report their established baseline condition/performance, targets,
and progress toward achieving targets would be as specified in section
490.107(c). The FHWA further proposes in 490.105(f)(8) that the State
would be able to provide MPO targets to FHWA on request after targets
are established or adjusted by MPOs within the State. The FHWA believes
that, through the coordination between a State DOT and relevant MPOs,
the reporting on MPO progress can be shared between these two entities.
However, FHWA expects to be able to request from a State DOT the MPO
targets and reports on progress, as needed, to better understand
performance expectations and outcomes in urbanized areas across the
country. The State DOT and MPO would document the target establishment
reporting process. The FHWA encourages State DOTs to work with multiple
MPOs to mutually agree on a process for reporting that would provide a
sufficient level of consistency to understand performance in urbanized
areas collectively across the State.
Discussion of Section 490.107 Reporting on Performance Targets
Proposed reporting requirements for measures identified in section
490.207(a) are discussed in section 490.213 of the first performance
management NPRM; and performance target reporting requirements specific
to pavement condition measures in sections 490.307(a)(1) through (c)(4)
and bridge condition measures in sections 490.407(c)(1) and (c)(2) are
included in the second performance management NPRM. The discussions
specific to those measures will not be repeated in this NPRM. Please
see the docket for proposed Subpart A in its entirety for additional
information.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e), State DOTs are required to submit
reports on performance targets and progress in achieving established
targets to FHWA not later than October 1, 2016, and every 2 years
thereafter. The FHWA evaluated whether there were any existing reports
that could be used to meet these 23 U.S.C. 150(e) reporting
requirements. For the non-HSIP related measures, FHWA determined that
none of the existing reporting requirements met the statutorily
required timing. In addition, none of the existing reports currently
provide the consistency needed to implement performance management
nationally. For these reasons, FHWA proposes a new biennial report to
meet the statutory requirements.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107 for State DOT performance
reporting to be used:
In the determination of significant progress toward
achieving NHPP and NHFP targets;
to provide some of the information needed for FHWA to
report to Congress on the performance-based planning process evaluation
of each State DOT as required by 23 U.S.C. 135(h);
to understand performance needs, expectations, and
progress at a State, regional, and national level; and
to provide for transparency by communicating the content
of the report to the public on an externally facing Web site in a
downloadable format.
In section 490.107, FHWA proposes the minimum requirements that
State DOTs and MPOs would follow to report targets for all measures
identified in section 490.105(c), which include the proposed measures
in both this performance management NPRM and the second performance
management NPRM. In section 490.107(a), FHWA proposes that all
performance targets described in section 490.105 would be subject to
biennial performance reporting in this section. However, reporting on
performance targets for carrying out the HSIP would be in accordance
with section 490.213. In the first performance measure rulemaking,
published as a final rule on March 15, 2016, FHWA requires a 1 calendar
year period as the basis for measurement, target establishment, and
reporting. As discussed in section 490.101 of that Rule, a 1-year
period is required to align the safety measures with the requirements
for the common measures reported as a requirement of 23 U.S.C. 402. The
FHWA also proposes that State DOTs use an electronic template to
deliver the report proposed in section 490.107(a)(3). The FHWA intends
to provide additional guidance regarding the template which will
include fields to capture all of the information that

[[Page 23854]]

would be required to be reported under this rulemaking.
The FHWA anticipates the final rule for the pavement and bridge
condition performance measures (proposed in the second performance
management NPRM) to be effective no later than October 1, 2016, and
anticipates that the final rule for this proposal to be effective no
later than October 1, 2017. However, 23 U.S.C. 150(e) requires State
DOTs to submit reports on performance targets and progress in achieving
established targets to FHWA not later than October 1, 2016. To meet the
statutory deadlines for the first State DOT performance report due in
2016, FHWA proposes the minimum reporting requirements that would be
followed by State DOTs in section 490.107(a)(4). The FHWA proposes that
State DOTs would submit an Initial State Performance Report to FHWA by
October 1, 2016. In that report, the State DOTs shall include: (1) The
condition/performance of the NHS in the State derived only from the
available data in HPMS and NBI; (2) the effectiveness of the investment
strategy document in the State asset management plan for the NHS; (3)
progress toward targets the State DOT would be required to establish,
which may only be a description of how State DOTs would coordinate with
relevant MPOs and other agencies in target selection for the targets to
be reported in the first State Biennial Performance Report in 2018; and
(4) the ways in which the State is addressing congestion at freight
bottlenecks.
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1), FHWA proposes in section
490.107(a)(5) that State DOTs would establish targets within 1 year of
the effective date of applicable rule and the State DOTs would report
the initial targets to FHWA. In this section, FHWA proposes that State
DOTs submit their 2-year and 4-year targets for the first performance
period to FHWA either within 30 days of target establishment by
amending the Initial State Performance Report or on the due date of the
first Baseline Performance Report, whichever comes first. The related
NPRMs are being published on individual schedules. This creates the
possibility that State DOTs will be required to establish targets for
some performance measures, such as those published in the second
performance management NPRM, well before the first Baseline Performance
Report is due in October 2018. This proposal ensures timely reporting
of targets, and allows FHWA to begin to develop a national story around
targets sooner.
For consistent State DOT and FHWA reporting, FHWA proposes a 4-year
performance period in section 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA recognizes the
need for uniform data collection timing in order to ensure consistency
in reporting and repeatable target establishment and progress
evaluation processes. Thus, in subsequent sections, FHWA proposes the
timing of data collection based on the specified performance periods,
described in section 490.105(e)(4). The FHWA proposes that data
collection requirements for the established measures support the
reporting requirements in this section and be in accordance with the
respective Data Requirements section for each measure (see section
490.103). To ensure consistency in reporting, FHWA proposes that the
reported baseline condition/performance be derived from the latest data
collected through the beginning date of a performance period, the
reported actual 2-year condition/performance be derived from the latest
data collected through the midpoint of a performance period, and the
reported actual 4-year condition/performance be derived from the latest
data collected through the end date of a performance period. This is
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 in the discussion for section
490.105(e)(4).
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b) that State DOTs submit to
FHWA three types of Biennial Performance Reports: Baseline Performance
Period Report, Mid Performance Period Progress Report and Full
Performance Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes to make a
distinction between the three reports to emphasize the differences in
content while aligning the reporting process to the proposed target
establishment, progress evaluation, and other performance reporting
requirements. Figures 3-5 illustrate the proposed reporting timelines
for the three types of Biennial Performance Reports. The proposed
requirements identify three distinct biennial performance reports
(baseline, mid, and full) and State DOTs will be expected to provide
information for at least one of these reports every 2 years. Because
these reports would be required for consecutive 4-year performance
periods, the information provided in the Full Performance Period Report
would be provided at the same time and may include some of the same
information as the Baseline Performance Period Report for the next
performance period. As discussed previously, FHWA is proposing to
provide for an electronic template that State DOTs would use to capture
the information required in each of the three reports discussed in
section 490.107(b). It is envisioned that this electronic template
would provide the State DOT all of the relevant fields for the
information that would be due at the corresponding 2-year point. This
approach would allow State DOTs to provide all of the required baseline
and progress reporting information at one time. The proposed
regulations identify three distinct reports to clarify the purpose and
timing of information that would be required to be reported every 2
years.

[[Page 23855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.002

The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Baseline Performance
Period Report in section 490.107(b)(1), where the State DOTs would be
required to submit a Baseline Performance Period Report no later than
October 1st of the first year of a performance period. The FHWA is
proposing that the first performance period would begin on January 1,
2018, for the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(7) and would begin on October 1, 2017, for emission measure
identified in section 490.105(c)(8). Although the performance periods
may be different, the reporting for all the measures in 490.105(c)
would follow the same schedule. State DOTs would submit their Initial
State Performance Report no later than October 1, 2018. Subsequent
Baseline Performance Period Reports would be due no later than October
1st every 4 years thereafter.
The required contents for the Baseline Performance Period Report
are discussed in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii). The FHWA is proposing that
the Baseline Performance Period Report would be the official source of
the non-

[[Page 23856]]

safety targets established by the State DOT. To document the
established targets, FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A) that
State DOTs would report both their established 2-year and 4-year
targets for each measure listed in section 490.105(c) for the current
performance period. Additionally, if a State DOT elects to establish
additional targets as described in sections 490.105(e)(3) and
490.105(e)(9)(iv), the State DOT would be required to include these
targets (both 2-year target and 4-year target) in the report.
Although FHWA would not approve the State DOT submitted targets, a
discussion of the basis for each established target would be included
in the Baseline Performance Period Report. The FHWA believes that this
discussion is needed to explain the State DOT's basis for the selection
of a target. The FHWA intends to publish the State DOT established
targets on a publicly available Web site along with the State DOT's
discussion of the basis for each target selection. Although other MAP-
21 required plans and reports may discuss and use targets, FHWA is
proposing that only the targets reported in the Baseline Performance
Period Report and the HSIP report would be used by FHWA in carrying out
the requirements of 23 CFR 490, as they are the targets established by
the State DOT to meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B) that the State
DOTs report baseline condition/performance associated with each target
reported to represent the latest condition/performance data collected
through the beginning date of a performance period. Because the first
performance period for the measures in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(7) is proposed to begin on January 1, 2018, the baseline condition/
performance for this performance period would be the most recent
condition/performance that represents actual condition/performance
through December 31, 2017. As the first performance period for the on-
road mobile source emissions measure in section 490.105(c)(8) is
proposed to begin on October 1, 2017, State DOTs would establish
baseline performance of a 4-year cumulative emissions reduction
resulting from CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year
2017 (ending September 30, 2017) in the CMAQ Public Access System, as
described in section 490.809. The CMAQ Public Access System contains 20
years of past data. Since all past data in the CMAQ Public Access
System may not have the necessary values for the proposed measure, FHWA
believes that State DOTs should revisit the data for CMAQ projects from
fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2017 to improve baseline
performance establishment which would ultimately help the State DOTs in
their target establishment. Should a State DOT elect to establish
additional targets, as described in sections 490.105(e)(3) and
490.105(e)(9)(iv), the State DOT would report baseline condition/
performance that represent the applicable areas in addition to the
statewide baseline condition/performance. As an example, for the
Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times
measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)), would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel Times (sections 490.503(a)(1) and 490.513(b)) expressed
in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a baseline
condition/performance for this measure would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel Times expressed in one tenth of a percent. As a
hypothetical example, a baseline condition/performance would be 37.7
percent for the proposed measure Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(C) that State DOTs
would be required to also include a discussion in the Baseline
Performance Period Report, of how the established 2-year and 4-year
targets support longer term performance expectations in other
performance-related plans, such as the State asset management plan and
the long-range statewide transportation plan.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) that State DOTs
would be required to report the geographic boundaries and Decennial
Census population data used to determine target scope and establish any
additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. Similarly, in
section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be
required to report the NHS network limits used for target
establishment. The State DOT would report both the urbanized area
boundaries and NHS limits used for target establishment by identifying
the corresponding data inventory year of the HPMS that includes this
information. Additionally, State DOTs would be required to report the
latest Decennial population data for all urbanized areas in accordance
with HPMS Field Manual. The FHWA would use this information in
determining measure applicability and making its progress
determinations in future years. It is the State's responsibility to
ensure that the data entered into HPMS reflects the information that is
used for target establishment.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F) that, in each
Baseline Performance Period Report, State DOTs would include
discussions on the ways in which State DOTs are addressing congestion
at freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the National
Freight Strategic Plan. This content is required as part of the report
under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(4). To meet this requirement for State DOTs to
address congestion at freight bottlenecks within the State, FHWA
proposes that State DOTs would describe their activities to improve
freight bottlenecks. For the purpose of this report only, freight
bottlenecks would be defined as the segments of the Interstate System
not meeting thresholds for freight reliability and congestion (section
490.613) and any other locations the State wishes to identify as
bottlenecks based on its own freight plans or related documents if
applicable. Further, the State DOT should reference its activities in
other freight planning and programs that focus on improving freight
bottlenecks, including: Comprehensive freight improvement efforts of
Statewide Freight Planning or MPO freight plans; the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and TIP; regional or corridor
level efforts; other related planning efforts; and operational and
capital activities targeted to improve freight movement on the
Interstate. The FHWA understands the multifaceted and multimodal nature
of a freight bottleneck and that many State DOTs will likely define
bottlenecks beyond the definition for this Part. The FHWA believes that
due to the diversity in characteristics of bottlenecks and a lack of a
universal definition or approach to measurement, this reporting on
freight bottlenecks should be focused at a minimum on the performance
measures, as proposed in section 490.607 and how those measures and the
State DOT's associated targets might be impacted by other freight
efforts currently underway, such as planning or programming. The FHWA
encourages State DOTs to consider multimodal freight performance in
transportation planning and programming efforts taking place beyond
this rule. Upon development of the National Strategic Freight Plan, a
State DOT shall specifically include its activities for addressing
freight bottlenecks as part of that Plan in this report. The FHWA is
seeking comment on this approach.

[[Page 23857]]

The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(G) that State DOTs,
where applicable, would be required to describe the boundaries of EPA's
designation of nonattainment or maintenance areas under the NAAQS in 40
CFR part 81 at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA. Please refer to the discussion in section
490.103(c) for more information.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3), MPOs serving a TMA with a
population over 1 million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas for O3, CO or PM NAAQS are required to submit CMAQ
Performance Plan, required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a part in the
State Biennial Performance Report. In section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H), the
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would report relevant MPOs' CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.003

[[Page 23858]]

The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report in section 490.107(b)(2). In section 490.107(b)(2)(i),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required to submit a Mid
Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1st of the
third year of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the
first performance period would begin on January 1, 2018, for the
measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) and would
begin on October 1, 2017, for the emission measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8). Although the performance periods may be
different, the reporting for all the measures in section 490.105(c)
would follow the same schedule. State DOTs would submit their first Mid
Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1, 2020, and
subsequent Mid Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no
later than October 1st every 4 years thereafter.
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents
for the Mid Performance Period Progress Report. In section
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs would be required
to report 2-year condition/performance in each Mid Performance Period
Progress Report. As exhibited in Figure 4, FHWA proposes that the 2-
year condition/performance would be reported to represent the actual
condition/performance derived from the latest measured condition/
performance through the midpoint of a performance period. Considering
the first performance period is proposed to begin on January 1, 2018,
for the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7), 2-
year condition/performance for this performance period would be the
most recent conditions/performance that represents actual conditions/
performance through December 31, 2019, (illustrated in Figure 4). As
defined in section 490.101, a target is a numeric value that represents
a quantifiable level of condition/performance in an expression defined
by a measure. The FHWA proposes that a target would be a single numeric
value representing the intended or anticipated condition/performance
level at a specific point in time. For example, the proposed measure,
Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times
measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)), would be a percentage of
directional mainline highways on the Interstate System providing for
Reliable Travel Times (sections 490.503(a)(1) and 490.513(b)) expressed
in one tenth of a percent. Thus, FHWA proposes that a target for this
measure would be a percentage of directional mainline highways on the
Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times expressed in one
tenth of a percent. As a hypothetical example, a 2-year target for that
measure would be 39.5 percent. The 2-year condition/performance would
be 39.2 percent. For the on-road mobile emissions measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8), 2-year condition/performance for this
performance period would be the estimated cumulative emissions
reduction resulting from CMAQ projects from fiscal year 2018 through
fiscal year 2019 in the CMAQ Public Access System, as described in
section 490.809.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) that State DOTs
would also include a discussion of progress made toward the achievement
of 2-year targets established for the current performance period. In
this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 2-year
condition/performance with the 2-year targets that were established for
the performance period. For example, in the first Mid Performance
Period Progress Report in 2020, a State would compare the actual
condition/performance through 2019 with the 2-year targets established
for the first performance period and discuss why targets were or were
not achieved. This discussion could describe accomplishments achieved,
planned activities, circumstances that led to actual conditions/
performance, or any other information that State DOT feel would
adequately explain progress. Although this explanation would not be
used to determine significant progress, as described in section
490.109, this information would be made available to the public to
provide an opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes
achieved. As an example, for the Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Travel Times measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)),
a hypothetical 2-year target for this measure is 39.5 percent (in
section 490.105(e)). If 2-year condition/performance for this measure
is 39.2 percent as discussed above, the State DOT would discuss why
this target was not achieved in its Mid Performance Period Progress
Report.
The FHWA proposes in sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) that, in
each Mid Performance Period Progress Report, State DOTs would include
discussions on the effectiveness of the investment strategy documented
in the State asset management plan for the NHS and the ways in which
State DOTs are addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks, including
those identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan, as described
in section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F). This content is required as part of
the report under 23 U.S.C. 150(e)(2) and (4). The FHWA recognizes that
the Mid Performance Period Progress Report for the first performance
period may be impacted by the timing of the implementation of the new
NHS asset management plan requirement and the development of a final
National Freight Strategic Plan. The FHWA intends to issue further
guidance if the timing of these two plans would impact a State DOT's
ability to comply with the requirements proposed in sections
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D).
As discussed in section 490.105(e)(6), FHWA recognizes the
challenges that State DOTs may face in target establishment and
proposes to allow State DOTs to adjust their 4-year targets. The FHWA
is proposing in section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(E) that State DOTs would
report any adjustments to their 4-year targets in the Mid Performance
Period Progress Report. The FHWA proposes that this target adjustment
allowance would be limited to this specific report and not allowed
prior to, or following, the submittal of the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report. For example, if a State DOT elects to adjust a 4-year
target established in its first Baseline Performance Period Report in
2018, the State DOT would only be able to adjust the 4-year target in
its Mid Performance Period Progress Report in 2020. In addition to
reporting the adjusted 4-year target, the State DOT would be required
to include a discussion on the basis for the adjusted 4-year target(s)
for the performance period and a discussion on how the adjusted targets
support expectations documented in longer range plans, such as the
State asset management plan and the long-range statewide transportation
plan. The FHWA intends to publish the State DOT established targets on
a publicly available Web site with the initial target basis discussion.
Any targets adjusted at the mid-point will also be reflected on the
site.
The FAST Act introduced 23 U.S.C. 167(j), which requires FHWA to
determine if a State has met or made significant progress toward
meeting the performance targets related to freight movement. This was
not part of MAP-21. To meet the requirements of the FAST Act, FHWA has
incorporated language throughout this NPRM requiring the targets
established for the measures in section 490.105(c)(6) to be included in
the significant progress process. The FHWA has called these the NHFP
targets. Section

[[Page 23859]]

490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) is the first regulatory reference to the NHFP.
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs
would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the
2-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period
Report that would had been established for the NHPP measures specified
in sections 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and the NHFP measures in
section 490.105(c)(6). Additionally, State DOTs would provide
information to discuss how the actual 2-year condition/performance
levels compare to targets. Although this discussion would not be used
to determine significant progress for the applicable measures, this
information would be made available to the public to provide an
opportunity for the State DOT to discuss actual outcomes related to the
NHPP and NHFP. For example, the State DOT may use this discussion to
explain how it effectively and efficiently delivered a program designed
to achieve 2-year targets, how this may have resulted in actual
condition/performance improvements for the NHPP and NHFP, and how the
State DOT would deliver a program to make significant progress for 4-
year targets for the NHPP and NHFP.
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(G), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were
outside of its control that impacted its ability to make significant
progress for the 2-year targets for the NHPP or NHFP. The FHWA would
use this discussion when considering extenuating circumstances
discussed in section 490.109(e)(4).
In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(H), FHWA proposes that if FHWA
determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward
the achievement of any NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial FHWA
determination, then the State DOT would include a description of the
actions it will undertake to achieve those targets as required,
respectively, under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) or 167(j).
For example, for the NHPP or the NHFP, if FHWA determines that a
State DOT has not made significant progress (as provided in section
490.109(e)(2)) for either the 2-year or 4-year significant progress
determination, then the State DOT would include a description of the
actions it would undertake to achieve its conditions/performance with
respect to all related measures (section 490.109(f)) in its next
Biennial Progress Report. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has
achieved the target or made significant progress, then the State DOT
does not need to include such description in the next Biennial Progress
Report.
For the NHPP targets, the FAST Act amended the language in MAP-21,
and changed the determination period from being based on looking back
over ``two consecutive determinations'' (a 4-year period) to a single
biennial FHWA determination which looks back over a 2-year period. This
is a change from the language presented in the second NPRM, but it is
required to be consistent with the amended statute.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3), MPOs serving a TMA with a
population over 1 million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas for O3, CO, or PM NAAQS are required to submit CMAQ
Performance Plan, required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a part in the
State Biennial Performance Report. In section 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(I),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would report relevant MPOs' CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.

[[Page 23860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.004

The FHWA proposes the requirement for the Full Performance Period
Progress Report in section 490.107(b)(3). In section 490.107(b)(3)(i),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs be required to submit a Full Performance
Period Progress Report no later than October 1st of the first year
following the completion of a performance period. The FHWA is proposing
that the first performance period would begin on January 1, 2018, for
the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) and
would begin on October 1, 2017, for emission measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(8). Although the performance periods may be
different, the reporting for all the measures in section 490.105(c)
would follow the same schedule. State DOTs would submit their first
Full Performance Period Progress Report no later than October 1, 2022,
and subsequent Full Performance Period Progress Reports would be due no
later than October 1st every 4 years thereafter.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii), FHWA proposes the required contents
for Full Performance Period Progress Report.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A), FHWA proposes that State DOTs
would be required to report 4-year condition/

[[Page 23861]]

performance in each Full Performance Period Progress Report. As
exhibited in Figure 5, FHWA proposes that the 4-year condition/
performance be reported to represent the actual condition/performance
derived from the latest measured condition/performance through the end
of a performance period. Considering the first performance period is
proposed to begin on January 1, 2018, for the measure identified in
section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(7) and on October 1, 2017, for the
measure identified in section 490.105(c)(8), the 4-year condition/
performance for this performance period would be the most recent
conditions/performance that represents actual conditions/performance
through December 31, 2021 (illustrated in Figure 5). For the on-road
mobile emissions measure identified in section 490.105(c)(8), 4-year
condition/performance for this performance period would be the 4-year
cumulative emissions reduction resulting from CMAQ projects from fiscal
year 2018 through fiscal year 2021 in the CMAQ Public Access System, as
described in section 490.809. As indicated in Figure 5, the reported 4-
year condition/performance in a Full Performance Period Progress Report
would be the baseline condition/performance for next performance period
for all measures.
As an example, for the Percent of the Interstate System providing
for Reliable Travel Times measure (in section 490.507(a)(1)), an
hypothetical 4-year target for this measure is 38.5 percent (in section
490.105(e)). If 4-year condition/performance for this measure is 37.7
percent as discussed above, the State DOT would discuss why this target
was not achieved in their Full Performance Period Progress Report.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B) that the State
DOTs would also include a discussion of progress made toward the
achievement of 4-year targets established for the relevant performance
period. In this discussion, State DOTs would present a comparison of 4-
year condition/performance with the 4-year targets that were
established for the performance period. For example, in the first Full
Performance Period Progress Report in 2022, a State DOT would compare
the actual condition/performance through the end of the performance
period with the 4-year targets established for the first performance
period and discuss why targets were or were not achieved. This
discussion could describe accomplishments achieved, planned activities,
circumstances that led to actual conditions/performance or any other
information that State DOT would feel would adequately explain
progress. Although this explanation would not be used in the
determination of significant progress, this information would be made
available to the public to provide an opportunity for the State DOT to
discuss actual outcomes achieved.
As discussed in sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) for the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report, FHWA also proposes in sections
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) that in each Full Performance Period
Progress Report, State DOTs would include discussions on the
effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in their State
asset management plans for the NHS and the ways in which State DOTs are
addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks, including those
identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan, as described in
section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F). Please refer to the discussion of
sections 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(F), 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (ii)(D) for
more information.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(E), FHWA proposes that the State DOTs
would discuss the progress they have made toward the achievement of the
4-year targets reported in the current Baseline Performance Period
Report, or adjusted in the current Mid Performance Period Progress
Report, that would have been established for the NHPP measures
specified in sections 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and the NHFP
measures specified in section 490.105(c)(6). Additionally, State DOTs
would provide information to discuss how the actual 4-year condition/
performance levels compare with the applicable NHPP or NHFP targets.
Although this discussion would not be used in the determination of
significant progress for the applicable measures, this information
would be made available to the public to provide an opportunity for the
State DOT to discuss actual outcomes related to the NHPP and NHFP. For
example, the State DOT may use this discussion to explain how it
effectively and efficiently delivered a program designed to achieve
targets and how this may have resulted in actual condition/performance
improvements for the NHPP and NHFP.
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(F), FHWA is proposing that a State DOT
would report any factors that it could not have foreseen and were
outside of its control that impacted its ability to make significant
progress for the NHPP or NHFP 4-year targets. This discussion would be
used by FHWA to consider the application of the proposed consideration
of extenuating circumstances discussed in section 490.109(e)(4).
In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(G), FHWA proposes that if FHWA
determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward
the achievement of any NHPP or NHFP targets, then the State DOT would
include a description of the actions it would undertake to achieve
conditions/performances with respect to all related NHPP or NHFP
measures within the measure group, as described in section 490.109(f).
For example, for the NHPP or NHFP, if FHWA determines that a State
DOT has not made significant progress at either the 2-year or 4-year
significant progress determination, then the State DOT would include a
description of the actions it would undertake to achieve its targets
with respect to all related measures in the next Biennial Progress
Report. If FHWA determines that the State DOT has achieved or made
significant progress, then the State DOT does not need to include this
description in the next Biennial Progress Report.
As discussed in section 490.107(c)(3), MPOs serving a TMA with a
population over one million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas for O3, CO, or PM NAAQS are required to submit CMAQ
Performance Plan, required under 23 U.S.C. 149(l), as a part in the
State Biennial Performance Report. In section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(H),
FHWA proposes that State DOTs would report relevant MPOs' CMAQ
Performance Plan, where applicable.
The FHWA proposes, in section 490.107(c), that MPOs document the
manner in which they report their established targets. The MPOs would
report their established targets to the relevant State DOTs in a manner
that is agreed upon by both parties and documented. The FHWA proposes
in section 490.105(e)(5), that MPOs would report targets to the State
DOT in a manner that would allow the State DOT to provide FHWA, upon
request, all of the targets established by relevant MPOs. In section
490.107(c)(2), FHWA also proposes that MPOs would report baseline
condition/performance, and progress toward the achievement of their
targets, in the system performance report in the metropolitan
transportation plan, in accordance with 23 CFR 450. In sections
490.105(e)(3) and 490.105(d)(3), FHWA discusses how an urbanized area
boundary or NHS limit changes during a performance period may lead to
changes in the measures reported for an area/network and could impact
how an established target relates to actual measured performance. The
FHWA anticipates that changes in the MPA boundary could also impact how
an established target relates to actual measured performance. Thus,
FHWA

[[Page 23862]]

seeks comment on whether the description of the MPA in place when
establishing targets should be included in the system performance
report and apply to the entire performance period.
As required in 23 U.S.C. 149(l), each MPO serving a TMA with a
population over 1 million representing nonattainment and maintenance
areas must develop a performance plan, updated biennially, to report
baseline levels and the progress toward achievement of the targets for
the CMAQ traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions
measures. The FHWA proposes that the CMAQ performance plan is not
required when the MPO does not serve a TMA with a population over 1
million; the MPO is attainment for O3, CO and PM NAAQS; or
the MPO's nonattainment or maintenance area for O3, CO, or
PM NAAQS is outside the urbanized area boundary of the TMA with a
population over one million. Based on the data available,\82\ FHWA has
prepared a list \83\ of the MPOs who might be subject to the CMAQ
performance plan and included this list in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ Metropolitan Planning Area Data: FHWA HEPGIS (Accessed on
5/1/2015): http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgismaps11/ViewMap.aspx?map=MPO+Boundaries|MPO+Boundary#. The
nonattainment/maintenance status of the MPOs areas was verified on
5/1/2015 based on EPA's Green Book (updated on April 14, 2015):
http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gis_download.html. Population
Data for Urbanized Areas (Accessed on 8/7/2013): https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html.
\83\ Document ``CMAQ Measure States and MPOs.pdf'' in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To encourage close coordination of the State DOT and MPOs in
implementing the performance requirements and to streamline the
reporting requirements, FHWA proposes in section 490.107(c)(3) that the
MPOs meet the reporting requirements of the CMAQ performance plan in 23
U.S.C. 149(l) if the MPO's CMAQ performance plan is submitted as part
of the State Biennial Performance Report as required under section
490.107(b). The CMAQ performance plan must be clearly documented in a
separate section, as an attachment, of the State Biennial Performance
Report. The FHWA is soliciting comments on other ways that will help
further streamline the reporting requirements. Some options may
include:
1. The MPOs could submit their CMAQ performance plans to FHWA
separately from the State Biennial Performance Report as discussed in
section 490.107(b). In this case, the State DOTs and the MPOs should
coordinate to ensure that the MPOs' data are reflected in the State
report in a consistent manner.
2. The MPOs could submit their performance information to the State
DOTs to be included in the State Biennial Performance Report. In this
case, the State DOTs would be responsible to ensure the CMAQ
performance plan requirements are met.
The FHWA requests comments on other possible options that provide a
streamlined approach to meet the performance requirements as discussed
above.
The FHWA proposes that, similar to the State DOT Biennial
Performance Reports, an MPO would have three distinct performance
reports (Baseline Performance Period, Mid Performance Period Progress,
and Full Performance Period Progress). These distinct reports would
contain different content, but would align with target establishment
and other State DOT performance reporting requirements.
As part of the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the State DOT's
Baseline Performance Period Report, the MPO would include baseline
condition/performance for each applicable measure. This could result in
several different baseline condition/performances: One for each
urbanized area's traffic congestion measure and up to five \84\ for the
on-road mobile source emission measure. The FHWA intends that
``baseline level,'' as used in 23 U.S.C. 149(l), has the same meaning
as ``baseline condition/performance'' as used in this section.
Interpreting these phrases as having the same meaning will help ensure
that State DOTs and MPOs are reporting consistent baseline condition/
performance information. For the traffic congestion measure, the
baseline condition/performance would be the same as that reported by
the State DOT(s) under section 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ Measure for each of the applicable criteria pollutants and
precursors (VOC, NOX, CO, PM2.5 and/or
PM10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The report would also include the 2-year and 4-year targets for
these measures for the performance period. The establishment of targets
is required in section 490.105(f). An MPO would use the same geographic
area for both reporting its baseline condition/performance and
establishing targets. For the traffic congestion measure, as described
in section 490.105(f)(5), 2-year and 4-year targets would be identical
to the targets reported by the relevant State DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). As required by 23 U.S.C. 149(l)(1)(C), the report
would describe projects identified for CMAQ funding and how such
projects would contribute to achieving the performance targets for the
traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions measures.
The FHWA proposes that the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the
State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report would include the
actual 2-year condition/performance derived from the latest measured
condition/performance through the midpoint of the performance period
for an MPO-reported traffic congestion target and the estimated
cumulative emissions reduction resulting from CMAQ projects in the CMAQ
Public Access System for each MPO-reported on-road mobile source
emissions target. For the traffic congestion measure, the actual 2-year
condition/performance would be identical to the 2-year condition/
performance reported by the relevant State DOT(s) under section
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). For the on-road mobile source emissions measure,
an MPO should use the same process the State DOT uses for determining
the actual condition/performance, which is described in relation to
section 490.107(b)(2)(ii). As required by 23 U.S.C. 149(l)(2), MPOs
would assess the progress of the projects identified in the CMAQ
performance plan submitted with the Baseline Performance Period Report
toward achieving the 2-year targets for traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions measures. When doing this assessment, the MPO
would compare the actual 2-year condition/performance with the 2-year
target and document any reasons for differences between these two
values.
If an MPO adjusts its 4-year target, the MPO would report that
adjusted target, as provided in section 490.105(f)(7) and (f)(8). In
addition, an MPO would update its description of projects identified
for CMAQ funding and how those updates would contribute to achieving
the performance targets for these measures. If an MPO has not adjusted
its targets or does not have any changes to its description of
projects, it may comply with this proposed requirement by making a
statement to that effect.
The FHWA proposes the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the
State DOT's Full Performance Period Progress Report would include the
actual 4-year condition/performance derived from the latest measured
condition/performance through the end of the performance period for
each MPO-reported traffic congestion and estimated cumulative emissions
reductions resulting from CMAQ projects in the CMAQ Public Access
System for each MPO reported on-road

[[Page 23863]]

mobile source emissions target. For the traffic congestion measure, the
actual 4-year condition/performance would be identical to the 4-year
condition/performance reported by the relevant State DOT(s) under
section 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(A). For the on-road mobile source emissions
measure, an MPO should use the same process used by the State DOT for
determining the actual 4-year condition/performance, which is described
in relation to section 490.107(b)(3)(ii). As required by 23 U.S.C.
149(l)(2), MPOs would assess the progress of the projects identified in
the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the Baseline Performance
Period Report and any updates to that description identified in the
CMAQ performance plan submitted with the Mid Performance Period
Progress Report toward achieving the 4-year targets for these measures.
When doing this assessment, the MPO would compare the actual 4-year
condition/performance with the 4-year target and document any reasons
for differences between these two values.
The FHWA has proposed that MPOs submit three distinct CMAQ
performance plans with the State DOT's biennial performance reports
(Baseline Performance Period, Mid Performance Period Progress, and Full
Performance Period Progress). Because these plans would be required for
consecutive 4-year performance periods, the information provided in the
CMAQ performance plan submitted with the State DOT's Full Performance
Period Report would be provided at the same time and may include some
of the same information as the CMAQ performance plan submitted with the
State DOT's Baseline Performance Period Report for the next performance
period. As FHWA expects that State DOTs would provide all of the
required baseline and progress reporting information at one time, and
the MPO CMAQ performance plan would be submitted in a similar fashion.
The proposed regulations identify three distinct plans to clarify the
purpose and timing of information that would be required to be reported
every 2 years. The FHWA intends to issue guidance to assist MPOs in
developing and submitting these biennial plans.
The FHWA also seeks comments on other issues or problems State DOTs
and MPOs might anticipate in meeting the reporting requirements of 23
U.S.C. 149(l) and 150(e) for the performance measures related to the
CMAQ program and ideas for resolving any anticipated issues or
problems.
Discussion of Section 490.109 Assessing Significant Progress Toward
Achieving the Performance Targets for the National Highway Performance
Program and National Highway Freight Program
Significant progress determinations for measures identified in
section 490.207(a) are discussed in section 490.211 of the first
performance measure rulemaking, published as a final rule March 15,
2016; and significant progress determination specific to pavement
condition measures in sections 490.307(a)(1) through (c)(4) and bridge
condition measures in sections 490.407(c)(1) and (c)(2) are included in
the second performance measure NPRM. The discussions specific to these
measures will not be repeated in this NPRM. Please see the docket for
Subpart A in its entirety for additional information.
In section 490.109, FHWA proposes the method by which FHWA would
determine if a State DOT has achieved or is making significant progress
toward its performance targets in the NHPP, as required by 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(7), and NHFP, as required 23 U.S.C. 167(j). This determination
would involve the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through
(c)(5), which include the proposed measures in both this performance
management NPRM and the second performance management NPRM, and section
490.105(c)(6). Although this determination could directly impact State
DOTs, MPOs could also be indirectly impacted as a result of the link
between metropolitan and statewide planning and programming
decisionmaking. This rulemaking discusses the approach that would be
taken by FHWA to assess State DOT performance progress, but does not
include a discussion on the method that may be used by FHWA to assess
the performance progress of MPOs. Interested persons should refer to
the updates to the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations (RIN
2125-AF52) for discussion on the review of MPO performance progress.
The FHWA recognizes that there may be factors outside of a State
DOT's control that could impact its ability to achieve a target. The
FHWA considered these factors in its evaluation of different approaches
to implement this provision. A number of factors were raised as part of
the performance management stakeholder outreach sessions regarding
target establishment and progress assessment, including: The impact of
funding availability on performance outcomes, the reliability of the
current state-of-practice to predict outcomes resulting from
investments at a system level, the impact of uncertain events or events
outside the control of a State DOT on performance outcomes, the need to
consider multiple performance priorities in making investment trade-off
decisions, and the challenges with balancing local and national
objectives.
The FHWA recognizes that the State DOTs and MPOs have to consider
multiple performance priorities in making investment trade-off
decisions and that there are challenges with balancing local and
national objectives. During outreach, stakeholders \85\ raised a number
of concerns regarding progress assessment, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ AASHTO (2013), SCOPM Task Force Findings on MAP-21
Performance Measure Target-Setting. http://scopm.transportation.org/Documents/SCOPM%20Task%20Force%20Findings%20on%20Performance%20Measure%20Target-Setting%20FINAL%20v2%20(3-25-2013).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The desire to foster balanced and sound decisions rather
than focusing on achieving one target at the expense of another;
the desire to assess progress using quantitative and
qualitative input; and
the desire to avoid unachievable targets.
Thus, FHWA plans to implement an approach that balances the
uncertainty facing State DOTs in predicting future performance with the
need to provide for a fair and consistent process to determine
compliance. The approach being proposed by FHWA is based on the
following principles:
Focus the Federal-aid highway program on the MAP-21
national goals in 23 U.S.C. 150(b); and
recognize that State DOTs need to consider fiscal
constraints in their target establishment.
Because targets would be established for an entire system, FHWA
acknowledges that State DOTs may make small incremental changes within
that system that would not necessarily appear in a quantitative
assessment. In some instances, even a modest increase in improvement
when evaluating on a system-wide basis, would constitute significant
progress. Accordingly, FHWA proposes that for each NHPP target (targets
for the measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5))
and each NHFP (targets for the measures identified in section
490.105(c)(6)), progress toward the achievement of the target would be
considered ``significant'' when either of the following occur: The
actual condition/performance level is equal to or better than the State
DOT established target, or the actual condition/

[[Page 23864]]

performance is better than the State DOT identified baseline of
condition/performance. The FHWA believes that any improvement over the
baseline, which represents a 0.1 percent improvement, should be viewed
as significant progress considering the fiscal challenges and financial
uncertainties many State DOTs are faced with today. Although a change
of 0.1 percent may appear insignificant, this degree of improvement to
a highway network is difficult to achieve. In many State DOTs this
level of change would require improvements to hundreds, if not
thousands, of lane-miles of highway network. The FHWA reviewed the
extent to which State DOTs have been able to actually change system
conditions/performance of their highway networks in recent years to
validate this view of significant progress. This review supports FHWA's
belief that any improvement should be considered significant, as many
State DOTs have seen minimal or no improvements in the condition/
performance of their highway networks in recent years. This is the case
even with the influx of funding State DOTs were able to utilize through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. For these reasons,
FHWA believes that any improvement over the baseline should be viewed
as significant progress.
The FHWA believes that State DOTs, through a transparent and public
process, would want to establish or adjust targets that strive to
improve the overall performance of the NHS and freight movement. For
this reason, FHWA did not want to propose an approach to determine
significant progress that would be difficult to meet, as it could
discourage the establishment of ``reach'' targets due to the perceived
uncertainties that would need to be assumed by State DOTs. The FHWA
feels that the progress assessment approach proposed in this NPRM,
which considers improvement from baseline conditions to be significant,
would not discourage State DOTs from establishing targets to improve
the overall condition/performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate
System NHS, and freight movement.
The FHWA is proposing a three-step process to determine if a State
DOT has made significant progress toward the achievement of its NHPP
and NHFP targets. The FHWA would use this process to make a significant
progress determination for the NHPP and NHFP each time the State DOT
submits its Mid Performance Period Progress Report and its Full
Performance Period Progress Report. This process is summarized below
and discussed in more detail for each of the proposed regulations.
Step 1: Reporting Progress in the Biennial Performance
Reports--The State DOT would evaluate and report the progress it has
made both toward the achievement of each individual target and for all
related targets collectively established for the NHPP and NHFP measures
(measures identified in section 490.105(c)(1) through(c)(5) and
490.105(c)(6)). This evaluation would be documented in the discussion
of progress achieved since the most recent report. The State DOT would
document in its Biennial Performance Reports any extenuating
circumstances outside its control that may have impacted its ability to
achieve progress on any of the targets.
Step 2: Consideration of Extenuating Circumstances--The
FHWA would review the completeness of the content provided in their
Biennial Performance Reports and would determine if any documented
extenuating circumstances would be considered in the progress
assessment. A State DOT would provide any additional information to
FHWA, upon request, if the report is incomplete.
Step 3: Evaluation of Actual Condition/Performance--The
FHWA would determine if the State DOT has made significant progress for
each target using the following sources:
[cir] Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for
pavement condition measures, as specified in sections 490.105(c)(1) and
(c)(2);
[cir] Data contained in the NBI for targets established for bridge
condition measures, as specified in section 490.105(c)(3);
[cir] Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for
system performance measures, as specified in sections 490.105(c)(4) and
(c)(5);
[cir] Data contained within the HPMS for targets established for
Freight performance measures, as specified in sections 490.105(c)(6);
[cir] Data to define the urbanized area boundary and NHS limits as
documented in the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report; and
[cir] Population data, as defined by the most recent U.S. Decennial
Census that was available when targets were first reported by the State
DOT in their Baseline Performance Period Report.
The FHWA would use these biennial determinations to assess if the
State DOT is in compliance with the NHPP \86\ and NHFP \87\ performance
achievement provisions. For the NHPP and NHFP, the State DOTs are
required to achieve or make significant progress toward their targets
every biennial reporting period (every 2 years), and are to take
additional reporting actions if FHWA determines significant progress is
not made. The FHWA plans to issue guidance, following the publication
of the Final Rule, establishing when the determination notification to
the State DOTs will be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
\87\ 23 U.S.C. 167(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the NHPP, the requirement for State DOTs to take the additional
reporting actions would be based on each FHWA biennial determination.
This is a change from the second NPRM, which proposed that the
requirement for a State DOT to take the additional reporting actions
would be based on two consecutive FHWA biennial determinations. As
discussed in previous sections, the enactment of FAST Act introduced
the significant progress determination requirements for the NHFP and
removed the requirement that two consecutive reports (4 year period) be
used in determining if a State DOT would be required to take additional
reporting actions when the State DOT has made significant progress
toward its NHPP targets. Thus, in this NPRM, the language has been
changed to reflect the statutory language in FAST Act. The FHWA
proposes, in this NPRM, that FHWA would determine whether or not a
State DOT has achieved or make significant progress toward its NHPP and
NHFP targets every biennial reporting period, and the determination on
whether or not a State DOT would take additional reporting actions
based on each of FHWA biennial determination.
In section 490.109(a), FHWA proposes that it would determine
whether a State DOT has achieved or has made significant progress
toward achieving each of the State DOT's targets for each of the NHPP
and NHFP measures separately.
The FHWA proposes in section 490.109(b) that FHWA would determine
whether a State DOT has or has not made significant progress for NHPP
and NHFP targets at the midpoint and the end of each performance
period.
In section 490.109(c), FHWA proposes that FHWA would determine
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's NHPP and
NHFP targets after the State DOT submittal of the Mid Performance
Period Progress Report and after the State DOT submittal of the Full
Performance Period Progress Report. This process, which is described in
the discussion of section 490.107(b), would follow the proposed
schedule illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. Following this proposed
frequency, the FHWA would

[[Page 23865]]

make a significant progress determination for the NHPP and NHFP and
assess compliance with the NHPP and NHFP performance achievement
provisions every 2 years.
The FAST Act introduced 23 U.S.C. 167(j), which says ``If the
Administrator determines that a State has not met or made significant
progress toward meeting the performance targets related to freight
movement of the State established under section 150(d) by the date that
is 2 years after the date of the establishment of the performance
targets, the State shall include in the next report submitted under
section 150(e) a description of the actions the State will undertake to
achieve the targets, including . . .'' The FHWA interprets the 2-year
period referenced in 23 U.S.C. 167(j) as 2 years after the start of the
performance period, which is consistent with 150(e) reporting
requirements and the reporting regulations of this NPRM. This 2 year
period is the period of time the State DOT has to establish targets,
collect data, and provide information to FHWA. This interpretation
allows FHWA to determine if a State DOT has made significant progress
on its 2-year targets following the submittal of its Mid Performance
Period Progress Report, and on its 4-year targets following the
submittal of its Full Performance Period Progress Report.
The FHWA would notify all State DOTs within a reasonable time of
the final determination and would advise on any subsequent need to
address progress achievement in their next biennial reports (see
450.109(f)). The data reported to FHWA by the States would be available
to the public and would be used to communicate a national performance
story. The FHWA is developing a public Web site to share performance
related information. This information would provide for greater
transparency for FHWA programs.
The FHWA also expects that during a performance period, State DOTs
would routinely monitor leading indicators, such as program delivery
status, to assess if they are on track to make significant progress
toward achievement of their NHPP and NHFP targets. If a State DOT
anticipates it may not make significant progress, it is encouraged to
work with FHWA and seek technical assistance during the performance
period to identify the actions that can be taken to improve progress
toward making significant progress. The FHWA also seeks comment on
whether it should require State DOTs to more frequently (e.g.,
annually) evaluate and report the progress they have made.
The FHWA desires to use national datasets in a consistent manner as
a basis for making its NHPP and NHFP significant progress
determinations. Thus, in section 490.109(d), FHWA proposes to use
specific data sources that could be accessed by State DOTs and others
if they chose to replicate FHWA's determinations. The data in these
sources, specifically the HPMS, would be provided by State DOTs as
proposed in Subparts E-F. To ensure a repeatable process, in section
490.109(d), FHWA is proposing to establish a specific date (August 15)
to extract data from the HPMS for the measures proposed in this NPRM,
as the HPMS is often updated. This ``extraction'' date is considered
the earliest time data can be available in a national data source. This
proposed ``extraction'' date considers the time State DOTs typically
need to submit the data to HPMS, to process raw data, and to address
missing or incorrect data that may be identified as a result of quality
assessments conducted by the State DOT and/or FHWA. The proposed
``extraction'' date is necessary for FHWA to make significant progress
determinations in a timely manner. The FHWA is proposing to extract
metric data from the HPMS on August 15 to determine the actual
performance of Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS for the
Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Time measures, and Freight measures,
as specified in sections 490.105(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6). This date
is needed to provide FHWA with sufficient time to make a determination
of significant progress for NHPP and NHFP targets.
In section 490.109(e), FHWA proposes a process for the significant
progress determination for each individual NHPP and NHFP target. In
paragraph (e)(1), FHWA proposes that FHWA would assess how the target
established by the State DOT compares to the actual condition/
performance using the data/information sources described in section
490.109(d). This process is generally outlined in Step 3 of the 3-step
process described earlier. The FHWA proposes, in section 490.109(e)(2),
that FHWA would determine that a State DOT has made significant
progress for each 2-year or 4-year target if either: (1) The actual
condition/performance level is better than the baseline condition/
performance reported in the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report; or (2) the actual condition/performance level is equal to or
better than the established target.
For illustrative purposes, 2-year and 4-year evaluations where
improving targets were established for the first performance period are
shown in Figure 6.

[[Page 23866]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.005

The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs have to consider their fiscal
situation in target establishment and acknowledges that, in some cases,
anticipated condition/performance could be projected to decline from
(or sustain) the baseline condition/performance due to lack of funding,
changing priorities, etc. In these cases, State DOTs should document
why they project a decline in condition in their Biennial Performance
Reports as discussed in paragraph 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(A). The FHWA
proposes that significant progress could still be made in cases where
the established target indicates a decline from (or sustain) the
baseline condition/performance. For the decline/sustain condition/
performance scenario, FHWA proposes that significant progress is made
for a target when actual condition/performance level is equal to or
exceeds the target. For illustrative purposes, 2-year and 4-year
evaluations where declining targets were established for the first
performance period are shown in Figure 7.

[[Page 23867]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.006

As discussed in section 490.105(e)(7), FHWA recognizes the data
limitation issues associated with the non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability measure (in section 490.507(a)(2)) prior to the start of
the first performance period. Considering this limitation, FHWA
proposes in section 490.105(e)(7) that for the first performance
period, the State DOTs would not be required to report their 2-year
targets and their baseline condition for the non-Interstate NHS travel
time reliability measure at the beginning of the first performance
period. Consequently, FHWA proposes in section 490.109(e)(3) that for
the first performance period only, progress toward the achievement of
2-year targets for non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability measure
would not be subject to FHWA determination under section 490.109(e)(2).
The FHWA proposes to accomplish this by categorizing the 2-year
targets for the non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability measure as
``progress not determined,'' which would exclude these targets from the
FHWA determination under section 490.109(e)(2). The FHWA expects that
some State DOTs would adjust their established 4-year targets at the
midpoint of the first performance period because they may have had
limited baseline data available to them when they first establish the
4-year target. For the first performance period, FHWA would determine
significant progress toward the achievement of a State DOT's non-
Interstate NHS travel time reliability measure targets based on HPMS
data extracted on August15 of the year in which the Full Performance
Period Progress Report is due. The FHWA recognizes that some State DOTs
would be able to establish and report baseline condition and 2-year
targets for the proposed non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability
measure in their first Baseline Performance Period Report. However,
FHWA proposes that the process established in this section apply to all
State DOTs in order to ensure uniformity in the progress determination
process.
In section 490.109(e)(4), FHWA proposes that if a State DOT does
not provide sufficient data and/or information for FHWA to make a
significant progress determination for NHPP or NHFP target(s), then
that State DOT would be deemed to not have made significant progress
for those individual target(s).
In section 490.109(e)(5), if a State DOT encounters extenuating
circumstances beyond its control, the State DOT would document the
explanation of the extenuating circumstances in the biennial
performance report. This explanation would address factors that the
State DOT could not have foreseen and were outside of its control when
it established targets at the beginning of the performance period. If
the explanation is accepted by FHWA, then the associated NHPP or NHFP
target(s) would be classified as ``progress not determined'' and would
not be subject to the requirement under section 490.109(f). If the
explanation is not accepted by FHWA, then the State DOT would be deemed
to not have made significant progress for the target. Proposed
extenuating circumstances are listed in 490.109(e)(5). The list
includes:
Natural or man-made disasters causing delay in NHPP or
NHFP project delivery, extenuating delay in data collection, and/or
damage/loss of data system;
sudden discontinuation of Federal Government furnished
data due to natural and man-made disasters or lack of funding; and/or
new law and/or regulation directing State DOTs to change
metric and/or measure calculation.
In section 490.109(f), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23
U.S.C. 167(j), FHWA has proposed that if that if

[[Page 23868]]

FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant progress for
any NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial determination, then the State
DOT would include in its next Biennial Performance Report a description
of the actions the State DOT will undertake to improve conditions/
performances with respect to all related measures within the measure
group. The FHWA proposed the related measures be grouped as follows:
Interstate System pavement condition--both proposed
measures Percentage of pavements of the Interstate System in Good
condition in section 490.307(a)(1) and Percentage of pavements of the
Interstate System in Poor condition in section 490.307(a)(2);
Non-Interstate NHS pavement condition--both proposed
measures Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in Poor
condition in section 490.307(a)(3) and Percentage of pavements of the
non-Interstate NHS in Good condition in section 490.307(a)(4);
NHS bridge condition--both measures Percentage of NHS
bridges in Good condition in section 490.407(c)(1) and Percentage of
NHS bridges in Poor condition in section in 490.407(c)(2);
NHS travel time reliability--both measures Percent of the
Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times in section
490.507(a)(1) and Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for
Reliable Travel Times in section 490.507(a)(2); and
Peak Hour Travel Time for an Urbanized Area--both measures
Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour travel times meet
expectations in section 490.507(b)(1) and Percent of the non-Interstate
NHS where peak hour travel times meet expectations in section
490.507(b)(2). Please note the grouping for these measures is for each
urbanized area separately.
Freight movement on the Interstate System--both measures
Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck
Travel Times in section 490.607(a), and Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage Uncongested in section 490.607(b).
As a general example of this proposed approach, when a State DOT
has not made significant progress for any one of the targets for NHS
travel time reliability measures (Interstate or non-Interstate NHS),
then that State DOT would, at a minimum, include in its next Biennial
Performance Report a description of the actions the State DOT will
undertake to improve conditions for NHS travel time reliability
measures (Interstate or non-Interstate NHS). As for the peak hour
travel time measures, if significant progress is not made for either
urbanized area specific target (Interstate or non-Interstate NHS), as
described in section 490.105(e)(8), for an urbanized area, then the
State DOT would document the actions it will take to improve both the
Interstate and non-Interstate NHS peak hour travel times such that both
targets for the peak hour travel time measures will be achieved for
that urbanized area.
States must provide description of the actions they will undertake
in the next Biennial Performance Report. The FHWA strongly encourages
States to add a description of their planned actions to their most
recent Biennial Report within 6 months of the FHWA significant progress
determination to ensure actions to achieve targets are taken in a
timely manner, and to improve progress toward making significant
progress for the applicable targets.
Tables 10 and 11 illustrate this proposed determination method for
both the NHPP and NHFP measures. Table 10 includes the significant
progress determination results in 2021 for the midpoint of the 1st
performance period and the significant progress determination in 2023
for the end of the 1st performance period.

[[Page 23869]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.032

[[Page 23870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.033

[[Page 23871]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.034

In Table 10 above, the statewide target for the measure Percent of
the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel Times did not make
significant progress for the 2-year target in FHWA's biennial
determination in 2021. In this example, the State DOT would include, at
a minimum, in its next Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Full
Performance Period Progress Report in 2022) a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve its targets with
respect to both Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable
Travel Times and the Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for
Reliable Travel Times measures. The FHWA strongly encourages State DOTs
to add a description of their planned actions to their most recent
Biennial Reports (i.e. 2020 Mid Performance Period Progress Reports)
within 6 months of the FHWA significant progress determination to
ensure that State DOTs take actions to achieve targets in a timely
manner and to improve progress toward making significant progress for
the applicable targets.
Also in Table 10, for the hypothetical ``Urbanized Area A,'' the
urbanized area target for the measure Percent of the non-Interstate NHS
where peak hour travel times meet expectations did not make significant
progress for the 4-year target in FHWA's biennial determination in
2023. In this example, the State DOT would include in its next Biennial
Performance Report (i.e., Mid Performance Period Progress Report in
2024) a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake to
improve its performance with respect to both ``Urbanized Area A's
relevant measures: Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour
travel times meet expectations and the Percent of the Interstate System
where peak hour travel times meet expectations measures. In addition,
this hypothetical State DOT did not make significant progress for the
statewide target for the measure The Percent of the Interstate System
Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel Times for the 4-year target
in FHWA's determination in 2023. So the State DOT would, at a minimum,
include in its next Biennial Performance Report (i.e. Mid Performance
Period Progress Report in 2024) a description of the actions the State
DOT will undertake to achieve targets with respect to both the Percent
of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel
Times and the Percent of the Interstate System Mileage

[[Page 23872]]

Uncongested measures. The FHWA strongly encourages State DOTs to add a
description of their planned actions to their most recent Biennial
Reports (i.e. 2022 Full Performance Period Progress Reports) within 6
months of the FHWA significant progress determination to ensure that
State DOTs take actions to achieve targets in a timely manner and to
improve progress toward making significant progress for the applicable
targets.
The FHWA believes that any one of the targets would impact other
targets in the same measure group and that the State DOT's descriptions
of the actions for all targets in a same measure group would be more
logical and sensible in managing performance of relevant network rather
than isolated description on a subset of the network. So, FHWA proposes
that a State DOT would provide a description of the actions the State
DOT will undertake to achieve all targets in the same measure group.
As indicated in the previous discussion in section 490.109, FHWA
would make the significant progress determination each time the State
DOT submits its Mid Performance Period Progress Report and its Full
Performance Period Progress Report (every 2 years). In section
490.109(f)(2), FHWA proposes the consequences for not making
significant progress for the NHFP measures in 490.105(c)(6). Pursuant
to 23 U.S.C. 167(j), if a State DOT has not made significant progress
toward the achievement of NHFP targets in a single FHWA biennial
determination, then the State DOT must take the required actions in
section 490.109(f)(2).
When a State DOT does not make significant progress toward the
achievement of NHFP targets, it must include a description of the
actions the State DOT will undertake to achieve the targets in its next
Biennial Performance Report. This discussion must include:
A description of the actions the State DOT will undertake
to achieve targets including an identification of significant freight
system trends, needs and issues within the State;
a description of the freight policies and strategies that
will guide the freight-related transportation investments of the State;
an inventory of freight bottlenecks with the State and a
description of the ways in which the State DOT is allocating national
highway freight program funds to improve those bottlenecks; and
a description of the actions the State DOT will undertake
to meet the performance targets of the State.
For the purpose of the requirements in section 490.109(f)(2), the
State DOT may reference the Statewide Freight Plan elements that
identify freight system trends, needs and issues, as well as the
freight policies and strategies in the Plan to guide investment. Under
Section 150(e), State DOTs are already responsible for reporting on
ways in which the State DOT is addressing freight bottlenecks, which
are defined as those segments of the Interstates not meeting the
threshold levels for congestion and average speed, as well as any other
bottlenecks the State DOT wishes to include and anything that is
identified in the National Freight Strategic Plan. The State DOT will
provide an inventory of those segments as defined for section 150(e)
and any other locations the State DOT wishes to reference as a
bottleneck, as well as any bottleneck referenced in the National
Freight Strategic Plan. Additionally, the State DOT will describe how
funding is or will be allocated to improve freight fluidity through
bottlenecks, as well as other actions to meet performance targets of
the Interstates in the State.
In section 490.109(f)(3), FHWA proposes that State DOTs who fail to
make significant progress for either the NHPP or NHFP should amend
their Biennial Performance Reports within 6 months of FHWA's
determination to include the actions they will take to achieve their
targets. State DOTs are required to include description of the actions
the State DOT will undertake to achieve targets in its next Biennial
Performance Reports to meet the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7), as
described in paragraph (f) of this section. State DOTs are encouraged
to amend their most recent Biennial Performance Reports to include this
information. As discussed in sections 490.107(b)(2)(ii)(F) and
490.107(b)(3)(ii)(E), all State DOTs are required to discuss the
progress they have made toward the achievement of targets established
for the NHPP and NHFP measures in each of their Biennial Performance
Reports. The FHWA expects State DOTs would routinely monitor leading
indicators, such as program delivery status and measured data, to
assess if they are on track to make significant progress for their NHPP
and NHFP targets and expects State DOTs to be aware of their progress
prior to the time of each Biennial Performance Report. As described in
the discussion of section 490.109(c), if a State DOT anticipates it may
not make significant progress, it is encouraged to work with FHWA and
seek technical assistance during the performance period to identify the
actions that can be taken in a timely manner to improve progress toward
making significant progress for the targets reported in subsequent
Biennial Performance Reports. Thus, in section 490.109(f)(3), FHWA
proposes that the State DOT should, within 6 months of the significant
progress determination, amend its Biennial Performance Report to
document the information specified in this section to ensure actions
are being taken to achieve targets.
Discussion of Section 490.111 Incorporation by Reference
In the second performance measure NPRM, FHWA had proposed to
incorporate the proposed HPMS Field Manual to codify the data
requirements for measures and to be consistent with HPMS reporting
requirements. In this NPRM, FHWA proposes to extend that incorporation
to subparts E though G. This would codify the data requirements for
these measures and ensure consistency with HPMS reporting requirements.
The proposed HPMS Field Manual includes detailed information on
technical procedures to be used as reference by those collecting and
reporting data for the proposed measures. The proposed HPMS Field
Manual is included in the docket.
2. Subpart E: National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway System
In this section, FHWA describes the proposed provisions in Subpart
E, which would establish performance measures to assess the performance
of the NHS. The discussions of the proposed requirements are organized
as follows:
Section 490.501 discusses the purpose of the subpart;
Section 490.503 describes the applicability of the
subpart;
Section 490.505 presents the definitions;
Section 490.507 discusses the performance measures;
Section 490.509 describes the data requirements;
Section 490.511 identifies how to calculate performance
metrics; and,
Section 490.513 presents how to calculate performance
measures.
Relationship Between Data Requirements, Calculation of Metrics, and
Calculation of Measures
The following provides a general discussion of the relationship
between data requirements, metrics, and measures. This relationship
exists in this Subpart as well as Subparts F--H.

[[Page 23873]]

The proposed approach to determining individual measures includes data
requirements, methods to calculate metrics, and methods to calculate
measures. These are presented in sections 409.509, 490.511, and
409.513, respectively, and in similar sections in Subparts F--H. This
proposed approach is presented as follows:
Data Requirements--Outlines the data necessary to
determine the required set of metrics that would be used to calculate
the relevant measures. The type of data to be collected, the methods of
data collection, and the extent and frequency of collection are
described below and in the appropriate sections.
Metrics--Describes the values that would be calculated
from the data collected to support measure development and how to
report the individual metrics.
Measures--Provides the method to calculate the measures
using reported metrics. State DOTs would use the calculated measures to
report baseline condition or performance, establish targets, and report
on progress.
Discussion of Section 490.501 Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), to establish
performance measures for State DOTs to use to assess the performance of
the Interstate System and of the non-Interstate NHS. In this Subpart,
FHWA proposes to establish two measures (1) a travel time reliability
measure and (2) a peak hour travel time measure.
Discussion of Section 490.503 Applicability
The FHWA is proposing to establish a travel time reliability
measure to apply to the entire NHS, including Interstate System and
non-Interstate NHS elements. This measure would compare the longest
travel time or slowest speed that occurs during a specified time frame
to a reference travel time or speed for a transportation facility. A
reliability measure is an indication of the extra time travelers must
add to their trips in order to have a high degree of certainty that
they will arrive at their destination on time. The FHWA has defined
travel time reliability as the variability of travel times.
Reliability, in the eyes of transportation system users, reflects how
consistent a travel time is on portions of the NHS they are traveling
on. The larger the variability of travel times is from day-to-day or
hour-to-hour, the more the user has to plan for unexpectedly long
travel times when planning a trip. For instance, to make sure a
traveler arrives at the airport in time for a flight, the traveler may
allot extra travel time to ensure that he/she arrives in time in case
of traffic incident, bad weather, or road construction along the way.
In more mathematical terms, reliability looks at the longer (all
travelers) or longest (freight) travel times faced by users on portions
of the NHS and compares these times to what is typically experienced by
the system user (normal travel time). The larger the difference in
these travel times, the worse the reliability is. In order to improve
reliability, State DOTs and MPOs can implement operational and other
strategies that are specifically designed make the system more reliable
and efficient.
The reliability measure proposed in this NPRM would be reported as
a Percent of the Interstate System providing reliable travel times and
as the Percent of the Non-Interstate NHS providing reliable travel
times. What that really means is that the number of miles on the
Interstate or Non-Interstate NHS that performed in a reliable manner
will be those miles where the travel time during any time period of the
``daylight'' hours (6 a.m. to 8 p.m.), 7 days a week, did not surpass
the normal travel time by more 50 percent. The time periods during
``daylight'' hours include: 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. weekdays, 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. weekdays, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, and weekend days 6 a.m. to 8
p.m. If the longer travel times exceed the normal travel time by 50
percent or more in any of these time periods, then that section of road
is considered unreliable. The FHWA experience and analysis led to the
proposed threshold of 1.5, which reflects 50 percent longer travel
times. The FHWA seeks comments on whether the 1.5 threshold is
appropriate.
The calculations (or metrics) used to report this measure report
the travel time reliability for every road segment on the NHS, so it
will be readily apparent to State DOTs, MPOs, and the general public
where the NHS road segments are that have a reliability problem.
The FHWA also notes two important refinements that strengthen
travel time reliability measures: (1) Some operating agencies currently
exclude the top 20 percent of longest travel times throughout the year
when developing reliability-related measures because these travel times
typically are due to extreme events that are beyond an agency's control
and should not be considered in the assessment of overall system
performance; and (2) the reference travel time used in a reliability
measure often reflects travel time associated with typical or average
travel speeds rather than the time associated with free flow travel
speeds.
By establishing targets for, and reporting on this measure, State
DOTs and MPOs can better identify and manage portions of the NHS where
users experience unreliable travel. Note that FHWA is proposing a
phase-in for the establishment of targets for the non-Interstate NHS
reliability measure which is outlined in more detail under the
discussion for section 490.105(e)(7).
The FHWA is proposing to establish a peak hour travel time measure
to apply to the NHS, including Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS, within urbanized areas with a population over 1 million. By
establishing targets for, and reporting on this measure, State DOTs and
MPOs can better identify and manage portions of the NHS in major
urbanized areas regardless of roadway ownership. As proposed, FHWA
expects State DOTs and MPOs to use this measure to report one outcome
for each of the applicable urbanized areas, even in cases where the
boundary of the urbanized area intersects multiple States and
metropolitan planning areas.
Discussion of Section 490.505 Definitions
The FHWA is proposing to define Desired Peak Period Travel Time as
the travel time during 3 morning peak hours and the 3 evening peak
hours, for each reporting segment in urbanized areas with a population
over 1 million. State DOTs shall coordinate with MPOs when establishing
the Desired Peak Period Travel Time. A State DOT and MPO(s) must use
the same Desired Peak Period Travel Time for a particular reporting
segment for the purposes of calculating the metrics and measures. The
Desired Peak Period Travel Time should represent a travel time that is
consistent with the intended plan and design of the roadway as part of
a complete transportation system. The Desired Peak Period Travel Time
should be developed in consultation with operating agencies as well. An
operating agency is the agency or agencies that actually operate the
NHS roadways at the most local level--this could be a State DOT, MPO,
or a local (city, town, county) transportation agency. Operating means
applying operational strategies in the day to day management of the NHS
roadways; strategies such as posting travel times, sending out freeway
service patrols, altering signal timing, and other items that could
improve the efficiency and reliability of the NHS. The Desired Peak
Period Travel Time will be used to calculate the Peak Hour measure
which assesses peak hour travel and should represent a

[[Page 23874]]

travel time that is consistent with the intended plan and design of the
roadway as a part of a complete transportation system.
The FHWA is proposing to define Level of Travel Time Reliability
(LOTTR) as a comparison, expressed as a ratio, of the 80th percentile
travel time of a reporting segment to the ``normal'' (50th percentile)
travel time of a reporting segment occurring throughout a full calendar
year. The 80th percentile travel time reflects the longer travel times
to make a trip. The FHWA chose the 80th percentile travel time because
it reflects the travel time where operational strategies can make the
most impact on improving reliability. The closer the 80th percentile
travel time is to the normal (50th percentile) travel time, the better
the reliability. The FHWA seeks comments on this methodology.
The FHWA is proposing to define Normal Travel Time as the time
expected of Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS roadway users to
travel when the system is predominantly in use. This time is proposed
to be defined as the 50th percentile travel time occurring during this
defined time period. The 50th percentile relates to the travel time
that occurs in the middle of a distribution of all travel times for
that travel time segment during that time period over a 1-year
reporting period. The FHWA selected the 50th percentile as ``normal
travel'' because it represents the ``normal'' experiences of travelers,
rather than free flow travel (which would typically be a lower
percentile, such as the 20th).
The FHWA is proposing to define Peak Hour Travel Time as the hour
that contains the longest annual average travel time during the peak
period of each non-holiday weekday. The peak period is made up of the
hours of the day where the most people typically commute, or the hours
with the highest amount of travel and include: Morning (6:00 a.m. to
7:00 a.m.; 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and
afternoon (4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m.). This definition is needed as the peak period would
be used as the time frame to develop the Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio
metric.
The FHWA is proposing to define Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio as the
ratio between the longest peak hour travel time and the Desired Peak
Period Travel Time. The closer the ratio is to 1.0, the more the actual
peak hour travel time reflects the desired peak period travel time.
A Travel Time Cumulative Probability Distribution is the approach
State DOTs and MPOs would use to determine percentiles needed for the
travel time reliability measure. A travel time cumulative probability
distribution is a representation of all the travel times for a road
segment during a defined reporting period (such as annually) presented
in a percentile ranked order (see Table 11 below for an example). In a
graphic representation, as shown in the lower graph in Figure 8, the x-
axis is the span of travel times (from shortest to longest) and the y-
axis is the probability that a travel time will occur at or slower than
the travel time on the x-axis. The upper graph in Figure 8 shows the
travel time distribution, with travel time on the x-axis and the number
of occurrences over a year on the y-axis. In a graphic representation
of a cumulative probability distribution, the variability in travel
time is indicated by the difference between the upper and lower bounds
of travel times on a given travel time segment. For purposes of this
subpart, FHWA is proposing that the upper and lower bounds be
identified as the 80th and 50th percentile travel times respectively,
as illustrated in the lower graph in Figure 8. Travel time variability
will reduce as the difference between the upper and lower bounds
decreases or as the slope of the cumulative probability distribution
curve increases.

[[Page 23875]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.007

Table 11--Example Travel Time Distribution Showing Percentiles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example travel time distribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel time on
Rank (shortest to longest) road segment Percentiles
(seconds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 20
2......................................... 20
3......................................... 20
4......................................... 21
5......................................... 21
6......................................... 22
7......................................... 22
8......................................... 22
9......................................... 22
10........................................ 23 50th
11........................................ 24
12........................................ 24
13........................................ 24
14........................................ 25
15........................................ 27
16........................................ 27 80th
17........................................ 29
18........................................ 33
19........................................ 40
20........................................ 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note that Table 11 is a simple illustration of obtaining
50th and 80th percentile values in a hypothetical dataset with 20
travel time entries. Within Table 11, the 50th percentile is calculated
by multiplying the total number of travel time entries (20) by 0.5
resulting in ``10.'' So the tenth entry in the table would be the 50th
percentile travel time (23 seconds). The same approach would be used
with the 80th percentile calculation: 20 travel time entries x 0.8 = 16
so the 16th entry is the 80th percentile travel time (27 seconds).
Please see section 490.511 for the specifics on the proposed metrics
for Travel Time Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Time measures.
Discussion of Section 490.507 National Performance Management Measures
To Assess Performance of the NHS
The FHWA is proposing in section 490.507 the establishment of four
measures to be used to assess the

[[Page 23876]]

performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS. The first
two measures, which are focused on travel time reliability, are
applicable to all NHS roadways in the State. The next two measures,
focused on peak hour travel time, are applicable to all NHS roadways
within urbanized areas with a population greater than 1 million. A
total of four measures are proposed:
Travel Time Reliability:
Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable
travel times
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable
travel times
Peak Hour Travel Time:
Percent of the Interstate System in large urbanized areas
over 1 million in population where peak hour travel times meet
expectations
Percent of the non-Interstate NHS in large urbanized areas
over 1 million in population where peak hour travel times meet
expectations.
State DOTs and MPOs would need to establish targets for each of
these measures in accordance with section 490.105. These measures would
be calculated using the metrics proposed in section 490.511 following
the methods proposed in section 490.513. The data to support the
measures are proposed in section 490.509. The proposed travel time
reliability measures are designed to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to
better understand the scope of reliability problems on their highway
systems and to aid in identifying and implementing strategies to
improve system performance. These measures are intended to quantify the
variability in travel times experienced by users of the highway system
during hours of the day when the predominant travel occurs on the
system. In general, the variability captured by the proposed measures
would be a comparison of some of the longer travel times experienced by
users compared to the amount of time users typically expect their
travel to take. This comparison is an indication of how reliable the
highway system is, in terms of how close actual travel times are to
what is expected by users.
Based on research the FHWA has been doing for the past several
years, it believes that measuring the reliability of travel times is a
key to operating the system more efficiently and reliably.\91\ The FHWA
also heard from a wide range of stakeholders that travel time
reliability is important and should be considered in this rulemaking.
In addition, many stakeholders expressed a desire for a reliability
measure to capture longer than normal travel times that would occur as
a result of non-recurring congestion, such as traffic incidents, work
zones, and special events, which can be managed by operating agencies
through improved traffic flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ Urban Congestion Report Program (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/ucr/index.htm) Urban
Congestion Trend and ``Traffic Congestion and Reliability'' reports
(http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/reliability_reports.htm) Travel Time Reliability Overview Brochure
and Guidance Document (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/reliability_measures/index.htm) SHRP 2 Reliability Program (esp.
L03) Lessons Learned: Monitoring Highway Congestion and Reliability
Using Archived Traffic Detector Data (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/lessons_learned/index.htm) Monitoring Urban Freeways in
2003 (http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/FHWA-HOP-05-018.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed peak hour travel time measures are designed to be used
by State DOTs and MPOs in urbanized areas over 1 million in population
to better understand the scope of undesirable congestion problems in
these large urbanized areas and to identify and implement strategies to
improve system performance in these areas. The measures are designed to
compare the longest average time of travel experienced by users during
peak hours of the day to the travel time desired for the system. The
FHWA is proposing in section 490.511(c)(1) that the State DOT, in
coordination with MPOs, establish a desired time of travel for sections
of their highway system that would be consistent with its intended use
and design. The proposed measure would represent the percentage of the
applicable highway network where actual travel times experienced during
peak hours meets the expectations of the State DOT and MPOs. The FHWA
is proposing that peak hour travel times that meet expectations would
be those conditions where actual travel times are less than 50 percent
greater than what is desired for the highway.
The FHWA heard concerns from many stakeholders regarding the
effectiveness of the establishment of measures that would utilize an
absolute speed or travel time as a reference to assess NHS performance.
Many felt that some portions of the new expanded NHS highway network
may be functioning as intended even when traffic is not flowing freely.
Considering this, FHWA is proposing an approach where State DOTs, in
coordination with MPOs, would establish Desired Peak Period Travel
Times (as times that are desired for the reporting segment) to be used
as the basis for the peak hour measures. The Desired Peak Hour Period
Travel Time would reflect the policies and management approach for the
urbanized areas. In addition, as discussed in section 490.105(e)(8),
FHWA is proposing that the peak hour travel time measures would only be
applicable to NHS highways in urbanized areas where populations are
greater than 1 million. For these measures, one single target would be
established and reported for each applicable urbanized area, where
collectively all State DOTs and MPOs in these areas would need to agree
on the single target even where the urbanized area intersects with
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. In total, based on the 2010 U.S.
Census, 42 targets would be established nationwide using this measure--
one for each urbanized area where populations are greater than 1
million. This approach is being proposed so that State DOTs and MPOs
can work collectively to address highway performance problems that
cross geographic boundaries and impact the ability to improve system
performance throughout the urbanized area.
Discussion of Section 490.509 Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing for State DOTs and MPOs to use a travel time
data set that would meet the requirements discussed in section 490.103
of this rulemaking to calculate the metrics defined in section 490.511.
State DOTs and MPOs would use the same travel time data set to assess
the performance of the directional mainline highways of the NHS.
The FHWA is proposing State DOTs, in coordination with MPOs,
establish and submit reporting segments as discussed in section 490.103
of this rulemaking. These reporting segments would be used as the basis
for calculating and reporting metrics to the FHWA and for State DOTs
and MPOs to calculate the measures proposed in this subpart to assess
Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS performance. Reporting
segments, as defined in 490.101, include one or more travel time
segments and must be contiguous so that they cover the full extent of
the mainline highways of the NHS in the State. The section 490.103
discussion included in this rulemaking provides more information on the
proposal for State DOTs to define and submit reporting segments.
The FHWA is proposing in this section that State DOTs would use the
posted speed limits of roadways to estimate travel times for
calculating the Reliability metrics when the data is missing or
represented as a time of ``0'' or null in the Travel Time Data Set. The
proposed use of the posted speed data is discussed in section 490.511.
The FHWA is not proposing that posted

[[Page 23877]]

speed limit data be reported as part of this rulemaking.
The areas that would be applicable to the Peak Hour Travel Time
measure would be identified when the State DOT Baseline Performance
Period Report is due to FHWA, based on the urbanized area boundaries at
that time. These areas would continue to be applicable to the measure
(or conversely ``not applicable'') for the duration of the performance
period regardless of population changes that may occur during the
performance period. The FHWA is proposing that the applicability of the
area be determined using the most recent U.S. Decennial Census reports
on area populations. At the time of this rulemaking, the Peak Hour
Travel Time measure would be applicable to 42 urbanized areas in the
United States.
Discussion of Section 490.511 Calculation of System Performance Metrics
The FHWA is proposing that two metrics need to be calculated to
develop the Travel Time Reliability and Peak Hour Travel Time measures
proposed in this rulemaking. They are the LOTTR metric and the Peak
Hour Travel Time Ratio (PHTTR) metric. State DOTs would be required to
calculate these metrics for all applicable roadway segments for the
applicable time periods and report them to FHWA annually. The proposed
approach to calculate and report these metrics is discussed in this
section.
As proposed in section 490.511(b), the LOTTR metric would be
calculated annually by the State DOT for all reporting segments on the
NHS in the State and used by FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs to assess the
performance of the system. The source of data would be the Travel Time
Data Set. The FHWA is proposing that 5 minute travel time bins that do
not have data reported, or are reported as null, or ``0'' in the Travel
Time Data Set would be replaced with a calculation of the travel time
needed to fully traverse the travel time segment while traveling at the
posted speed limit. This will ensure that a complete set of travel
times for the time periods throughout the day needed to calculate the
LOTTR metric are utilized. The FHWA believes that, in order to
calculate an accurate assessment of reliability, travel times
throughout the day are necessary to capture the variability of travel
times on the system. The FHWA is proposing that in cases where travel
times are not recorded, typically due to a lack of probe sources, it is
assumed that vehicles are travelling at the posted speed limit. The
FHWA believes that this assumption is valid since a lack of vehicles
present during a 5 minute interval on a roadway segment generally
indicates uncongested conditions. The FHWA believes that as
technologies improve and the percentage of vehicles containing
equipment capable of communicating with vehicle probes increases, the
potential for missing data will decrease over time. Considering the
possibility for travel times to be missing during different time
intervals of the day and the need for a complete data set to accurately
calculate the reliability metric, FHWA encourages comments from the
public on this proposed approach and/or alternative approaches that
could be used reliably as part of a national performance program.
The FHWA is proposing that the LOTTR metric is based on the
variability of travel times over a full year during following time
periods: Weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.; 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.;
4:00 to 8:00 p.m.; and weekend days 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The FHWA
selected these time periods to cover peak hours and other times of day
the system may be used the most. It is FHWA's desire to have the Travel
Time Reliability metric reflect the level of consistency in travel
times during hours of the day when the majority of highway use occurs.
In addition, by using these smaller time periods, State DOTs and MPOs
may better understand reliability issues during varying travel periods
throughout the week (i.e., peak periods, weekday mid-day, and weekends)
and implement effective operational strategies. Evaluating the defined
time periods would remove the times of day when travel is typically
uncongested due to the lack of vehicle use. The proposed time periods
for the LOTTR metric covers 14 hours of each day resulting in 168
average travel time values for each reporting segment (stored in each 5
minute bin), either directly measured from probes or using the
calculated travel time at posted speed limit as discussed above. The
FHWA is proposing that the LOTTR metric be based on a full calendar
year of data which would require the analysis of up to 61,488 travel
time values for each reporting segment.\92\ Analyzing this volume of
data for each reporting segment will be simpler for the State DOTs and
MPOs if they use an automated spreadsheet or other software product
that features a ``percentile'' function. This function can be used to
generate the 50th percentile or ``normal time'' (a shorter travel time)
and the 80th percentile travel time (a longer travel time) that are
being proposed to calculate the metric. The FHWA is proposing the use
of the 80th percentile travel time because it is generally accepted as
the upper bound of travel times that transportation agencies can
plausibly manage using available resources; travel times beyond this
point are acknowledged to occur during unique traffic incidents that
are outside the control of a transportation agency.\93\ The FHWA is
proposing the use of the 50th percentile travel time to represent the
``normal'' or expected time of travel during hours of the day when the
highway is predominantly used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ Estimate based on multiplying 168 travel time values per
day by 366 days in the longest year that could occur.
\93\ SHRP 2 Project L03: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-L03-RR-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FHWA reviewed other options for the denominator in the LOTTR
metric and determined that the 50th percentile, more so than either the
20th percentile or average travel time, more accurately reflected the
expected time. Use of the 50th percentile, along with the 80th
percentile, travel time, shows the variability in travel times that
operational strategies can positively affect in helping to improve
travel time reliability.
In general, the proposed calculation is made by ranking, from the
shortest travel time to the longest, all the travel time values in each
reporting segment for each time period (weekdays 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 10
a.m. to 4 p.m.; and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. and weekends 6 a.m.to 8 p.m.)
every day from January 1st through December 31st and identifying the
50th and 80th percentile travel times in this series for each time
period. An example is contained in Table 11. The FHWA is proposing that
the LOTTR metric would be calculated by developing a ratio that
compares the 80th percentile travel time to the normal (50th
percentile) travel time as shown in the following equation.

[[Page 23878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.008

The resulting LOTTR metrics (one for each time period) would be
rounded to the nearest hundredth decimal place and calculated for every
NHS reporting segment within the State. The LOTTR values for each of
the four time periods would be reported for the relevant reporting
segment. The FHWA believes that the comparison of the 80th and 50th
percentiles of the travel times occurring during the time periods
identified, the most typical travel times, will reflect the reliability
of the system as perceived by most highway users. The FHWA encourages
comments from the public on the use of time periods to develop the
LOTTR metric, as well as the number and length of the time periods
proposed.
In section 490.511(c), FHWA is proposing that the PHTTR metric
would be calculated by State DOTs for all NHS mileage within urbanized
areas with a population over 1 million using average peak hour travel
times derived from the Travel Time Data Set. The proposed metric is a
comparison of the longest average hourly travel time, referred to in
this rulemaking as the ``peak hour travel time,'' to the travel time
desired by the State DOT and MPO for the reporting segment. The FHWA is
not proposing to address missing data for this metric as:
The metric is focused on travel occurring during only peak
hours of the day when it may not be correct to assume free flowing
conditions when data are missing; and
the metric is computed using hourly average travel times
that can be determined even if there are missing 5 minute travel time
bins within the one hour time period.
The FHWA also proposes that, for this metric, any 5 minute bin
travel times that represent travel speeds below 2 mph or above 100 mph
be excluded from the metric calculation to remove outliers that may
negatively affect the metric. The FHWA encourages comments on these
approaches and invites suggestions on alternatives that could be
considered that may be more effective.
In this rulemaking, FHWA is proposing that the peak period of
travel will occur between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 4:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. on non-holiday weekdays. The six 1-hour time blocks
within these periods are referred to as the ``peak period'' in this
rulemaking. The FHWA proposes a 2-step process of determining the peak
hour of travel time for calculating the PHTTR metric for a reporting
segment. As the first step, the annual average travel time for each of
the six hourly blocks in the peak period (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 7:00
a.m. to 8:00 a.m.; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 5:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) would be calculated
separately for a reporting segment. For calculating those six annual
averages, measured travel times on non-holiday weekdays over a full
calendar year would be used. As the second step, the highest numeric
value, or longest time, of the annual average travel time among the
hours in the peak period would be selected as the peak hour travel time
for calculating the PHTTR metric for the reporting segment and that
hour would be referred to as the ``peak hour'' for metric and measure
development purposes. For example, if annual average peak hour travel
times across a reporting segment were as follows: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00
a.m.: 125 seconds; 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.: 196 seconds; 8:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m.: 120 seconds; 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.: 105 seconds; 5:00 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m.: 105 seconds; 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.: 108 seconds, then
the 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. period with an average annual hourly travel
time of 196 seconds would be selected as the peak hour and used to
calculate the PHTTR.
This proposed process is illustrated in the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.009

Where:

Max = longest average travel time of the six peak hours
i = ``peak hours'' (each hour between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
j = day of the year
T = total number of days in the year
k = 5 minute bin
Travel Timek,j,i = vehicle travel time, to the nearest
second, for the reporting segment recorded or estimated during 5
minute bin ``k,'' on day ``j,'' during the peak hour ``i''
Peak Hour Travel Time = the highest recorded annual average
travel time, to the nearest second, occurring throughout the year
during the ``peak hours.''

The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs, in coordination with MPOs,
establish Desired Peak Period Travel Times for each reporting segment,
based on their operational policies for NHS roadways. The FHWA
recommends that these Desired Peak Period Travel Times also be
developed in consultation with operating agencies. For each reporting
segment, State DOTs would need to report a single ``Desired Peak Period
Travel Time'' for the morning hours in the peak period and a single
``Desired Peak Period Travel Time'' for the afternoon hours in the peak
period when reporting segments are submitted to FHWA as proposed in
section 490.103(f). As proposed, State DOTs would only be allowed to
modify the Desired Peak Period Travel Time if the reporting segment
lengths change during a performance period. The FHWA anticipates that
State DOTs will work with MPOs, in consultation with applicable
operating agencies, to develop polices (i.e., desired travel at posted
speed limits) that would determine how the desired level would be
established. Under this proposed approach, FHWA does not plan to
approve or judge the Desired Peak Period Travel time levels or the
policies that will lead to the establishment of these levels.
The FHWA is proposing that the PHTTR ratio is a comparison of the
Peak Hour Travel Time to the Desired Peak Period Travel Time for each
reporting segment and calculated as illustrated in the following
equation:

[[Page 23879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.010

Where:

Peak Hour Travel Time = the longest recorded average annual
travel time, to the nearest second, occurring throughout the year
during the ``peak hour;''
Desired Peak Period Travel Time = the desired travel time,
to the nearest second, in the peak period, either morning or
afternoon, that corresponds to the hour in which the Peak Hour
Travel Time occurred;
PHTTR = Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio for the reporting
segment to the nearest hundredth.

In section 490.511(d), FHWA is proposing for State DOTs to report
annually the LOTTR and PHTTR metrics for each applicable reporting
segment on the NHS. State DOTs would report these metrics in HPMS no
later than June 15th of the following year (i.e., metrics for calendar
year 2017 would be reported no later than June 15, 2018). Specifically,
FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would report annually the following
to the HPMS for each reporting segment:
NPMRDS TMC codes (or related reporting segments made up of
multiple Travel Time Segments) or standard HPMS location referencing;
LOTTR metrics for each of the four time periods, to the
nearest hundredth;
80th percentile, travel times for each of the four time
periods to the nearest second;
50th percentile, travel times for each of the four time
periods to the nearest second;
PHTTR metric, to the nearest hundredth;
Peak Hour Travel Time, to the nearest second; and
the Hour (6 a.m., 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., or 6
p.m.)
The FHWA intends to issue additional guidance on how State DOTs
could report these data to HPMS. The FHWA recognizes the burden
associated with the efforts needed to conflate (or relate) travel time
reporting segments (NPMRDS data locations) to locations on a defined
roadway network (State GIS-based locations). For this reason, FHWA is
not proposing a requirement for State DOTs to conflate the travel time
reporting segments to the HPMS roadway network. The FHWA intends to
conduct this conflation.
Discussion of Section 490.513 Calculation of System Performance
Measures
The FHWA is proposing section 490.513 to establish a method that
can be used by State DOTs, MPOs, and FHWA to calculate the performance
measures proposed in section 490.507. These system performance measures
are based on the performance metrics proposed in section 490.511
Calculation of System Performance Metric(s). The FHWA expects that
State DOTs and MPOs will use the methods proposed in this section to
assess and report on the performance of the system. The FHWA proposes
to use this calculation method to report on performance at a national
level and to carry out its evaluation of the progress made by State
DOTs to achieve their NHPP targets.
The proposed calculation method would be used to determine the
percentage of the system, by length, operating at a specified level of
performance. The general format for this calculation is illustrated in
the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.011

Where:

i = reporting segment
R = total number of reporting segments operating at a
specified performance level, as defined through a threshold proposed
for each metric
T = total number of reporting segments in the system and
area applicable to the measure
SLi = length of the reporting segment, to the
nearest thousandth of a mile
Measure = the percentage of the system operating at a
specified performance level (operating below the metric threshold).

The FHWA is proposing the level that represents reliable travel to
highway users is a LOTTR of 1.50. This LOTTR level represents an
operating level where 80 percent of the travel times observed on a
roadway segment is less than 50 percent more than what is observed
normally (defined as the 50th percentile travel time for this
rulemaking). The LOTTR is a ratio, so a 1.0 would mean that the 80th
and 50th percentile travel times were the same. A 1.50 or above LOTTR
means that the 80th percentile travel time is 50 percent longer than
the 50th percentile travel time and represents less than acceptable
travel time reliability. In general, this operating level of
reliability represents conditions where the amount of time to travel on
an NHS highway is up to 50 percent longer than what users would have
expected. The FHWA also considered a threshold of 2.0, or twice the
normal travel time, but determined that these travel times would be
longer than most system users would consider reliable. The FHWA
ultimately chose the 1.5 threshold understanding that there will be
some variability in travel time that may be beyond the ability of
operating agencies to affect. While any LOTTR above 1.00 would indicate
some variability in travel time, it is the variability that is 50
percent more than the normal time that is being addressed with this
measure and that has the ability to be addressed through operational
and other strategy implementation. The FHWA encourages comments from
the public on the proposed LOTTR threshold level of 1.50 and if it is
at the appropriate level to indicate unreliable performance.
The FHWA is proposing that a PHTTR threshold level of 1.50
represents 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. The PHTTR is a
ratio where 1.0 would mean that that the actual peak hour travel time
would equal to the Desired Peak Period Travel Time. So a PHTTR of 1.5
represents an actual peak hour travel time that is 50 percent higher
than the Desired Peak Period Travel Time. The FHWA feels that a PHTTR
level of 1.50 or higher indicates a roadway is no longer meeting its
intended purpose, as desired by local needs, to move traffic through
the system. The FHWA encourages comments from the public on the
proposed PHTTR threshold level of 1.50 and if it is at the appropriate
level to

[[Page 23880]]

indicate that peak hour travel time performance meets expectations.
Both of these measures use the same threshold--1.50. The FHWA
believes that highway users and operating agencies begin to consider
the system to not meet expectations when trips take 50 percent longer
than what they would normally expect. For example, highway users would
become frustrated with the system when a trip that is expected to take
30 minutes ends up taking 45 minutes or longer.
For the reliability measure, FHWA evaluated the impact of different
threshold values ranging from 1.2 to 2.0 on reliability of the
Interstate System in five States that varied in size and population.
This evaluation showed minimal sensitivity to changes in reliability
when the reliability threshold was above 1.6 and a sharp drop off in
reliability when the threshold was below 1.3. The FHWA's proposed
threshold value of 1.50 resulted in reliability levels that appeared to
be reasonable as a level that could be used to manage performance.
A summary of the criteria described previously for the proposed
performance measures, including the measure, the metric, and
transportation network or geographic area the measure would apply to,
is provided in Table 12 below:

Table 12--Summary of Proposed Performance Measure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
transportation
Measure Metric & threshold network/
geographic area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
490.507(a)(1): Percent of the LOTTR < 1.50
Interstate System providing Interstate
for reliable travel times System.
(calculation proposed in
490.513(b)).
490.507(a)(2): Percent of the LOTTR < 1.50 Non-
non-Interstate NHS providing Interstate NHS.
for reliable travel times
(calculation proposed in
490.513(c)).
490.507(b)(1): Percent of the PHTTR < 1.50
Interstate System where peak Interstate
hour travel times meet System in each
expectations (calculation urbanized area
proposed in 490.513(d)). [dagger] with a
population >1
M.
490.507(b)(2): Percent of the PHTTR < 1.50 Non-
non-Interstate NHS where peak Interstate NHS
hour travel times meet in each
expectations (calculation urbanized area
proposed in 490.513(e)). [dagger] with a
population >1
M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] One measure would be calculated for each urbanized area,
including those urbanized areas that intersect with multiple State and
metropolitan planning area boundaries.

3. Subpart F: National Performance Management Measures To Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate System
In this sub-section, FHWA describes the proposed requirements in
Subpart F, which would establish performance measures to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System. The discussions of the proposed
requirements are organized as follows:
Section 490.601 discusses the purpose of the subpart;
Section 490.603 describes the applicability of the
subpart;
Section 490.605 presents the definitions;
Section 490.607 discusses the performance measures;
Section 490.609 describes the data requirements;
Section 490.611 identifies how to calculate performance
metrics; and,
Section 490.613 presents how to calculate performance
measures.
Discussion of Section 490.601 Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), to establish
performance measures for State DOTs to use to assess the performance of
freight movement on the Interstate System. The FHWA proposes to
establish in this subpart a travel time reliability measure and a
congestion measure for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System.
Discussion of Section 490.603 Applicability
As required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(6), FHWA proposes that the freight
performance measures will apply to freight movement on the Interstate
System.
Discussion of Section 490.605 Definitions
The FHWA proposes to define Normal Travel Time for freight
performance in the same manner as defined for system performance in
section 490.603 as the time expected of Interstate System roadway users
to travel when the system is predominantly in use. This time is
proposed to be defined as the 50th percentile travel time occurring
during this period of use. The 50th percentile relates to the travel
time that occurs in the middle of a distribution of all travel times
for that travel time segment over a 1-year reporting period. The FHWA
selected the 50th percentile as ``normal travel'' because it is the
mid-point of all reported travel time and is more likely to provide an
accurate estimate of the typical travel time that best serves as the
travel time, or denominator, by which to compare the highest travel
times. The 50th percentile was chosen to represent the Normal Travel
Time because it has been used in previous FHWA performance measure
research and analysis to represent a speed at which a vehicle is
traveling without impediments or congestion. This previous FHWA
research and analyses confirmed that this is an appropriate threshold.
The FHWA considered other options, including the 20th percentile and
average speed. After analysis of these options, the 50th percentile
compared to the 95th percentile appeared to provide the most meaningful
representation of delay for the purpose of this rule.
Discussion of Section 490.607 National Performance Management Measures
To Assess Freight Movement on the Interstate System
Slow or unreliable truck travel times are a cause of diminished
productivity for drivers and equipment; they reduce the efficiency of
operations, increase the cost of goods, increase fuel costs, and reduce
drivers' available hours for service. Considering these potential
impacts and the input received from public and private sector freight
stakeholders, FHWA is proposing measures in this subpart that would
focus on both the speed of truck travel and the time reliability for
truck travel. The FHWA identifies these measures as complimentary in
illustrating congestion and performance of the Interstate System. The
FHWA believes that State DOTs and MPOs, by using both of these
measures, can assess and evaluate areas where freight-movement problems
are occurring on the Interstate System by looking at the entire
Interstate System within their boundaries, as well as specific isolated
areas where delays typically occur. The

[[Page 23881]]

two measures proposed are: (1) Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Truck Travel Times; and (2) Percent of the
Interstate System Uncongested.
The first proposed measure (Percent of the Interstate System
providing for Reliable Truck Travel Times) is based on the concept of
using a metric that is an index to assess the ``extra budgeted time''
needed to assure an on-time arrival. This concept, used by many
transportation operating agencies today to assess and manage system
operations, considers the variability in operating travel times as an
indicator of trip time planning needs. In general, highways that are
operating with higher travel time variability would require extra time
to be budgeted to assure an on-time arrival of trips. This metric can
be used as a management tool to identify the strategies that, when
implemented effectively, would minimize the need for travelers to have
to budget ``extra time'' into their trip planning.
The efficient use of resources to move goods across the country is
particularly critical for freight operations on the Interstate System.
For this reason, the reliability measure proposed in this subpart is
designed to support freight trip planning needs where a high level of
certainty is needed to assure on time arrivals for trips occurring at
all hours throughout the year. Shippers, carriers, and receivers desire
on-time or just-in-time delivery of goods and plan their trips by
building in enough time to be on time. To do this, they consider the
longest travel times of a route by looking at the distribution of
travel times, which equates to the 95th percentile or higher. They
typically budget their trip time at the 95th percentile travel time
level. This assures their customers that aside from an extreme traffic
event, they will be on time. However, the freight industry will
consider the reliability ratio of the worst travel times to normal
travel times in route planning and desire for there to be a low ratio
meaning that there is little difference between the normal travel time
and the worst travel times. They will reroute or consider other
shipping options for routes with extreme congestion or high reliability
rations. To be consistent with the industry measures of reliability,
FHWA proposes to use the 95th percentile travel time in comparison to
the 50th percentile travel time as the normal travel time. As a
threshold, FHWA proposes that the reliability ratio be below 1.5. This
means that the trips take no more than 50 percent longer than normal.
The FHWA believes that the freight industry would not find trips that
are longer than 50 percent above normal reliable. The FHWA seeks
comments on this assumption.
The FHWA selected this ratio based on information it has received
from stakeholders as well as its own research. As discussed with
relation to section 490.513 (the performance of the NHS measures), FHWA
believes that shippers and suppliers begin to consider the system to
not meet expectations when trips take 50 percent longer than what they
would normally expect.
The truck travel time reliability measure proposed in this subpart
differs from the travel time reliability measure proposed in Subpart E
(for performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS) of this
rulemaking in that the truck travel time reliability is focused on the
variability in travel times experienced by trucks during all hours of
the day and throughout the year. In contrast, the travel time
reliability measure proposed in Subpart E is focused on the variability
in travel times experienced by all vehicles that typically occur due to
non-recurring events during the times of the day when the highway
facility is in predominant use. The second proposed measure (Percent of
the Interstate System Mileage Uncongested) uses average truck speeds to
determine the percentage of Interstate System mileage that is
considered uncongested. This measure is being proposed to assess where
delays are occurring on the Interstate System so that strategies to
address these locations can be implemented to improve the efficiency of
freight movement. This measure differs from the reliability measure in
that it is focused on shortening travel times where the reliability
measure is focused on improving the consistency of travel times.
The congestion measure proposed in this subpart differs from the
traffic congestion measure proposed in Subpart G (Annual Hours of
Excessive Delay per Capita) of this rulemaking in that the speed
threshold to identify the presence of congestion for freight movement
is higher than the threshold used to define traffic congestion. In
addition, the freight congestion measure broadly applies to all
Interstate System roadways across the country where the traffic
congestion measure is focused only on NHS roadways in the largest
urbanized areas in the country. Both sets of measures are based on
speed. The freight measures use speed to identify congested segments,
while the traffic congestion measure uses speed to calculate the
additional travel time caused by ``excessive'' delay.
The criteria used to establish the two proposed measures in this
subpart are derived from research and testing of data by FHWA using the
FPM. The FHWA produced two reports illustrating the use of Travel Time
Reliability and Average Truck Speed measures to validate the proposed
thresholds.\94\ These reports provided insight into how well the
measures described the travel conditions on the Interstate System
confirming that the thresholds are appropriate for the measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ FHWA 2006, Travel Time Reliability: Making It There On
Time, All the Time. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/tt_reliability/; FHWA 2006, Freight Performance Measure: Travel Time
in Freight-Significant Corridors. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/perform_meas/fpmtraveltime/traveltimebrochure.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Section 490.609 Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs use a travel time data set
that would meet the requirements discussed in section 490.103 of this
rulemaking to calculate the metrics defined in section 490.611. State
DOTs and MPOs would use the same travel time data set to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System.
The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs establish and submit
reporting segments as discussed in section 490.103 of this rulemaking.
These reporting segments would be used as the basis for calculating and
reporting metrics to FHWA, and for their use and MPO use to calculate
measures proposed in this subpart to assess freight movement. Reporting
segments, as defined in section 490.101, include one or more travel
time segments and must be contiguous so that they cover the full extent
of the mainline highways of the Interstate System in the State. The
section 490.103 discussion included in this rulemaking provides more
information on the proposal for State DOTs to define and submit
reporting segments.
The FHWA is proposing in this section that in cases where the
travel time required to calculate a metric is missing or represented as
a time of ``0'' or null in the Travel Time Data Set, State DOTs would
be required to use an observed travel time that represents all traffic
on the roadway during the same 5 minute interval (referred to as ``all
vehicles'' in the NPMRDS) provided this travel time is representative
of travel speeds less than the posted speed. In all other cases, FHWA
is proposing that State DOTs use a travel time that would have occurred
while traveling at the posted speed limit to replace missing travel
times or those that are represented as a time of ``0'' or null in the
Travel Time Data Set. The proposed use of the ``all traffic'' and
posted speed

[[Page 23882]]

data is discussed in section 490.611. As discussed previously, FHWA is
not proposing that posted speed limit data be reported as part of this
rulemaking.
Discussion of Section 490.611 Calculation of Freight Movement Metrics
In section 490.611, FHWA proposes the methodologies for calculating
Truck Travel Time Reliability and Average Truck Speed metrics. The FHWA
is proposing the same method to calculate the truck travel time
reliability metric as discussed for the LOTTR metric discussed in
Subpart E of this rulemaking with the exception of the days/times and
the travel time percentile used in the calculation. As discussed
previously in Subpart E, this method would require State DOTs to
assemble and organize a complete year of travel time data for each
reporting segment to calculate the metric. The FHWA is proposing in
section 490.611(b), that the assembled data would include, for each
reporting segment, average truck travel times, to the nearest second,
for 5 minute periods of the day, or 5-minute bins. The information in
those 5-minute bins would be collected throughout the day, for every
hour of every day from January 1st through December 31st of the same
year. In cases where the 5-minute bins for travel time segments are:
Missing from the dataset or include truck travel times
reported as ``0'' or null; and
do not include all traffic travel times representative of
speeds less than the posted speed limit; then
a truck travel time would be used that represents travel
at the posted speed limit (TTT@PSL)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.012

In section 490.611(b), to calculate the Truck Travel Time
Reliability the FHWA is proposing that State DOTs would determine from
the assembled data set described above the 95th percentile travel time
and the 50th percentile travel time. The basis for the 95th percentile
travel time is that it represents more certainty of on-time arrival for
freight stakeholders. The 50th percentile was chosen, as previously
described, based on an analysis of reliability measurement and how it
compares to using the 20th percentile or average. The FHWA analyzed
travel times for several regions in the Nation with different
population characteristics and found that the 50th percentile provided
the most accurate picture of reliability.
The metric would be determined by dividing the 95th percentile
travel time by the 50th percentile travel time for each reporting
segment. The FHWA believes that the 95th percentile travel time will
represent the longest trip, excluding extreme outliers, that likely
occurred on the reporting segment throughout the year and the 50th
percentile travel time will typically represent the normal time
experienced during the year. Therefore, the proposed metric will be an
indication of the variability considering nearly all travel times that
had occurred throughout the year. The FHWA is proposing this approach
so that the Truck Travel Time Reliability metric would be an indicator
of the planning time needed to assure a high level of confidence in on-
time arrival of freight movements that could occur all hours of the day
throughout the year. The FHWA is seeking comment specifically on the
appropriateness of the proposed percentiles used in this metric
calculation to assess reliability of truck travel times on the
Interstate System.
In section 490.611(c), to calculate the Average Truck Speed metric
for each reporting segment, truck travel speeds would be derived from
the data in the travel time data set. Within that data set, for any 5-
minute bins that are missing from the dataset, are missing data, or
where data is reported as ``0'' or null, those bins would be replaced
with the ``all traffic'' travel time value where the travel time
correlates with speeds that are less than posted speed limit. In all
other cases, it would be replaced with a travel time (TTT@PSL) that
would represent the time to traverse the travel time segment at the
posted speed limit.
Because the data set provides average travel times by Travel Time
Segment and in 5-minute bins (or 5-minute periods), Average Truck Speed
for a reporting segment would need to be calculated for the entire
calendar year. Average truck travel time would be calculated by
dividing the Travel Time Segment length by the truck travel time for
each reporting segment for each 5-minute bin throughout the calendar
year. Then, the result of this calculation for each of the 5-minute
bins would be added together. This sum would be divided by the total
number of 5-minute bins in a calendar year. This calculation would be
done for each of the reporting segments.
In section 490.611(d), FHWA is proposing for State DOTs to report,
on an annual frequency, the Truck Travel Time Reliability and Average
Truck Speed metrics for each reporting segment on the Interstate
System. State DOTs would report the annual outcomes to the HPMS by June
15th of the following year (i.e., metrics for calendar year 2017 would
be reported no later than June 15, 2018). Specifically, FHWA is
proposing that State DOTs would report annually the following to the
HPMS for each reporting segment:
Reference NPMRDS TMC codes (or related reporting segments
made up of multiple TMC codes) or standard HPMS location referencing;
Truck Travel Time Reliability metric, to the nearest
hundredth;
95th percentile travel time to the nearest second;
50th percentile travel time to the nearest second; and
Average Truck Speed metric, to the nearest hundredth mile
per hour.
The FHWA intends to issue additional guidance on how State DOTs
could report these data to HPMS. The FHWA recognizes the level of
effort needed to conflate travel time reporting segments to align them
with a referenced highway network for the system performance and
freight measures. For this reason, FHWA is not proposing a requirement
for State DOTs to conflate the travel time reporting segments to the
HPMS roadway network. The FHWA intends to conduct this conflation, if
needed, if State DOTs choose to report the metrics by Travel Time
Segment codes.
Discussion of Section 490.613 Calculation of Freight Movement Measures
In sections 490.613(a) and (b), FHWA proposes the method to
calculate the measures to assess freight movement on the Interstate
System proposed in section 490.607. This method would be used by State
DOTs and MPOs to assess freight performance when reporting and
establishing targets. The FHWA would also use this to report on freight
performance at a national level. The two measures would be calculated
using the

[[Page 23883]]

annual metrics reported for reporting segments.
The proposed calculation method would be used to determine the
percentage of the system, by length, operating at a specified level of
performance for each of the two measures. The general format for this
calculation is illustrated in the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.013

Where:

i = reporting segment
R = total number of reporting segments operating at a
specified performance level, as defined through a threshold proposed
for each metric
T = total number of reporting segments on the Interstate
System in the State
SLi = length of the reporting segment, to the
nearest thousandth of a mile
Measure = the percentage of the system operating at a
specified performance level (operating above the metric threshold).

The specific criteria proposed to calculate each of the measures
following the format discussed above is proposed as follows:
Truck Travel Time Reliability metric threshold < 1.50
Average Truck Speed = 50.00 mph.
The truck travel time reliability threshold of 1.50 is proposed to
be 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. Reliability levels greater than 1.50 are considered in this
rulemaking to be unreliable due to the impact of the additional time
that freight operators would need to consider and provide for during
trip planning to assure on-time arrival. Reliability levels greater
than 1.50 generally mean a trip could take twice as long as it would at
the 50th percentile or normal travel time. This would not occur on
every trip, but on the worst days. The FHWA also considered a threshold
of 2.0, or twice the normal travel time, but determined that these
travel times would be longer than most users would consider reliable.
The FHWA ultimately chose the 1.5 threshold understanding that there
will be some variability in travel time that may be beyond the ability
of operating agencies to affect.
The average truck speed of 50.00 mph is proposed to be the level at
which delay would exist on Interstate System highways when speeds are
below this value as posted speed limits on Interstate System highways
are typically 55 mph or greater. The FHWA is considering any travel
speeds occurring below 50.00 mph to be representative of ``congested''
conditions for freight flow. The FHWA is seeking comment on the
appropriateness of this speed threshold to indicate congested
conditions.
4. Subpart G: National Performance Management Measures To Assess the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--Traffic
Congestion
In this section, FHWA describes the proposed changes to Subpart G,
which would establish a performance measure for assessing traffic
congestion. The discussions of the proposed requirements are organized
as follows:
Section 490.701 discusses the purpose of the subpart;
Section 490.703 describes the applicability of the
subpart;
Section 490.705 presents the definitions;
Section 490.707 discusses the performance measure;
Section 490.709 describes the data requirements;
Section 490.711 identifies how to calculate performance
metric; and,
Section 490.713 presents how to calculate performance
measure.
Discussion of Section 490.701 Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), to establish
performance measures for State DOTs to use to assess traffic congestion
for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ program. The FHWA proposes to
establish in this subpart an excessive delay measure for State DOTs and
MPOs to use to assess traffic congestion.
Discussion of Section 490.703 Applicability
The FHWA proposes that the measure apply only to those portions of
the NHS in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million that
contain areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas for the
O3, CO, or PM (PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS
under the CAA Amendments of 1990.
The FHWA felt that the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measure should apply
to nonattainment/maintenance areas and should relate to how the CMAQ
program currently operates. Given the burden of developing multiple
measures, FHWA chose to limit this measure to urbanized areas over 1
million in population, as agencies in these areas typically have more
capability and experience in developing this type of measure than
agencies outside of these areas. In addition, MPOs in these areas are
expected to be the same MPOs that are required to report on this
measure as part of the CMAQ performance plan requirements in 23 U.S.C.
149(l).
Many traffic congestion reduction projects that seek CMAQ funding
use a form of a delay measure to show the benefits of traffic reduction
(as well as emission reductions). This, in part, led FHWA to focus on a
delay measure for the CMAQ Traffic Congestion measure, so that existing
and future projects would use similar measures for analysis as the
proposed national measure.
By establishing where and when the worst delay occurs on the NHS
facilities in large urbanized areas where air quality is a concern,
State DOTs and MPOs can better plan investments that address excessive
delays and emissions reduction.
Discussion of Section 490.705 Definitions
The FHWA proposes to define ``Excessive Delay'' as the traffic
speed that causes delays that would be perceived by users as being
excessive (i.e., delay that is significantly greater than normal and,
therefore, an indication of the most congested conditions). The FHWA is
proposing that ``excessive delay'' occurs on Interstates, freeways,\95\
or expressways \95\ when traffic slows to below 35 mph, and on other
principal arterials \95\ and all other roads included on the NHS when
traffic slows to below 15 mph. These speed thresholds were chosen to
represent ``excessive'' delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and
Procedures (2013 Edition): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Section 490.707 National Performance Management Measures
for CMAQ Program--Traffic Congestion
In section 490.707, FHWA proposes the measure of Annual Hours of
Excessive Delay Per Capita, which would be used by State DOTs, MPOs,
and FHWA to assess traffic congestion performance of large urbanized
areas that contain nonattainment or maintenance areas for any of the
criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program. The FHWA is proposing that
this measure be used to establish a single target and report on traffic
congestion performance for each applicable urbanized area, including
those that intersect with multiple State and metropolitan planning area
boundaries. This measure is being proposed because it addresses the
impact of transportation projects funded under the CMAQ

[[Page 23884]]

program, which are often designed to create both emissions and
congestion benefits. Incidentally, the proposed measure would also
capture the impacts of transportation projects funded via other sources
that aid in reducing congestion in areas applicable to this measure.
Use of an excessive delay measure relates to the widespread use of
delay-related metrics to justify congestion-related CMAQ projects, an
important consideration when looking at what projects will help meet
targets established under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2).
In order to capture the total delay over a full year, FHWA is
proposing in this subpart to use vehicle counts as a method to expand
the sampling of highway average travel times to all traffic using the
system. The FHWA elected to propose the use of vehicle counts as this
is the most accurate and widely available information on nationwide use
of the system. Including vehicle counts in the measure helps ensure the
measure reflects, as closely as possible from available data, the
actual amount of vehicles delayed. If FHWA proposed a measure that did
not include vehicle counts, the same length of delay on a high volume
road would count the same as the same length of delay on a low volume
road.
As discussed in the Performance Measure Analysis section of this
rulemaking, DOT considered alternatives to a highway based traffic
congestion measure that would reflect the delays experienced by all
travelers using all modes of surface transportation but, for the
reasons discussed in this rulemaking, elected to propose only a highway
based measure as a first step. After careful consideration, FHWA
determined that it would be too burdensome at this time to propose
requirements for State DOTs and MPOs to gather and process the data
necessary to calculate measures that would be representative of
travelers using all surface transportation modes. Although technologies
are improving and information on system use is more available, FHWA
believes that the current state of practice is not yet mature enough to
propose requirements to measure, in a reliable and consistent manner,
more than highway delay. Considering the current state, FHWA is
proposing a measurement approach that would focus on excessive delay
experienced by motor vehicles on the highway system. The FHWA is
proposing that this measure is expressed as a ratio of the total
excessive highway delay experienced by all traffic to the population of
the applicable area. This will provide a more meaningful measure as
delay is related to a typical person's experience in traveling in the
urbanized area. The FHWA recognizes that other options for making the
Annual Vehicle Hours of Excessive Delay understandable to the public
besides dividing by urban area population may exist. The FHWA
encourages comments on using ``per capita'' or other options.
The FHWA and DOT would like to move to a measure in the future that
could be used to assess traffic congestion in a manner that reflects
the experience of all travelers using the various modes of surface
transportation that are available in an urbanized area. For the purpose
of this rulemaking, FHWA considers any expansion of the proposed
approach to be a ``future'' measure of traffic congestion where such a
measure could additionally capture the congestion as experienced by
travelers that are using other modes such as: Transit, commuter
railways, walkways, and bikeways. The DOT is taking steps now to work
with State DOTs, MPOs, and other surface transportation stakeholders to
study and advance the technologies that could be used to move the
current state of practice to capture the necessary data to support a
``future'' measure.
The FHWA encourages public comment on the following issues related
to the measure approach and methods that can be used to realize a
``future'' measure of traffic congestion.
Are there existing methods that can be used reliably to
weigh the highway delay metric by ``total vehicle occupants'' rather
than ``total number of vehicles''? Are there technologies or methods
that could be advanced in the next 3-5 years to capture vehicle
occupancy data?
Which surface modes of transportation, other than
highways, have readily available data that could be used to support a
measure to assess traffic congestion? To what extent is this
information available in the urbanized areas applicable to the measure
proposed in this subpart?
What would be the appropriate surface transportation
network to use to measure traffic congestion in the future? Is data
available off the NHS that can be used to assess traffic congestion
that can be made available to all State DOTs and MPOs?
Discussion of Section 490.709 Data Requirements
The FHWA is proposing for State DOTs and MPOs to use a travel time
data set that would meet the requirements discussed in section 490.103
of this rulemaking to calculate the metrics defined in section 490.711.
State DOTs and MPOs would use the same travel time data set to assess
traffic congestion for all applicable directional mainline highways on
the NHS.
In section 490.709(b), FHWA is proposing for State DOTs to
establish and submit reporting segments, in coordination with MPOs on
the segments within metropolitan planning areas, as discussed in
section 490.103 of this rulemaking. These reporting segments would be
used as the basis for calculating and reporting metrics to FHWA and for
calculating measures proposed in this subpart to assess traffic
congestion. Reporting segments, as defined in 490.101, include one or
more travel time segments, and would be contiguous so they cover the
full extent of the mainline highways of the NHS in the State. The
section 490.103 discussion included in this rulemaking provides more
information on the proposal for State DOTs to define and submit
reporting segments.
To calculate the measure, State DOTs also would need to provide
estimates of hourly traffic volume that can be applied to some or all
portions of the NHS in areas applicable to this measure. Traffic
volumes would be needed to estimate the accumulated delay experienced
by all users of the highway system. The FHWA is proposing in section
490.709(c) that State DOTs could use one of the two methods proposed in
section 490.709(c)(1) to count or estimate hourly traffic volumes for
each reporting segment. Examples of standard approaches to estimate
hourly traffic include using AADT with k-factors or traffic profiles.
The hourly traffic volumes do not have to be submitted to FHWA, but
State DOTs would need to report to FHWA the method they used to
estimate traffic volumes. State DOTs would need to report the method
they use to FHWA no later than 60 days prior to the submittal of the
first Baseline Performance Period Report. The FHWA recognizes State
DOTs subsequently may change the method they used to estimate traffic
volumes. Thus, FHWA proposes in section 490.709(c)(4) that if a State
DOT elects to change the submitted methodology, then the State DOT
would submit the changed methodology no later than 60 days prior to the
submittal of next State Biennial Performance Report required in section
490.107(b).
The population of the applicable area is needed to calculate the
proposed traffic congestion measure. The FHWA is proposing in section
490.709(d) that the most recently available U.S. Decennial Census
population data available at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period

[[Page 23885]]

Report is due to FHWA would be used for the entire performance period.
Census-defined urbanized areas could change between the Decennial
Census and could be adjusted on varying schedules. Consequently, the
population in those changed or adjusted urbanized areas may change as
well. The FHWA recognizes that if an urbanized area boundary is changed
after the target is established by the State DOT for urbanized areas,
then actual measured performance within the changed urbanized area
boundary would represent a different transportation network and
population as compared to what was used to establish the target. This
difference could impact a State DOT's ability to make significant
progress for targets. Thus, for calculating the traffic congestion
measure, FHWA proposes that State DOTs and MPOs would use the latest
Decennial Census population of urbanized areas available at the time
when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Reports are due to FHWA,
regardless of subsequent boundary adjustment or natural population
changes. This means that the population numbers used in the calculation
of the traffic congestion measure would remain constant for the
duration of a performance period.
Similarly, urbanized areas that contain nonattainment or
maintenance areas would be based on the designation status at the time
the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA, and
that designation status would be used for the entire performance
period.
The geographic areas that would be applicable to this measure would
be identified in the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report
submitted to FHWA. These areas would continue to be applicable to the
measure (or conversely remain ``not applicable'') for the duration of
the performance period regardless of changes to designation, urbanized
areas, or populations that may occur during the performance period. The
FHWA is proposing that the applicability of the area be determined
using the most recent U.S. Decennial Census reports on area
populations; the urbanized areas approved by FHWA and submitted in HPMS
at the start of a performance period; and the EPA nonattainment or
maintenance designations for the O3, CO, and PM NAAQS. At
the time of this rulemaking, 36 urbanized areas in the U.S. would be
applicable to this measure.
Discussion of Section 490.711 Calculation of Congestion Metric
The FHWA is proposing in this section for State DOTs to calculate
the Total Excessive Delay for each reporting segment and report these
metrics to FHWA annually.
Section 490.711(b) contains the specific data that is required to
calculate the metric and is described in more detail in the discussion
of section 490.709(b). The use of the data is explained in the proposed
calculation methodology.
The FHWA is proposing in section 490.711(c) through (e) the method
to calculate the Total Excessive Delay as discussed below.
Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time--The FHWA is proposing in
section 490.711(c) the establishment of two threshold travel speeds
that would be used 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 are proposed to be:
35 mph for Interstates, freeways, or expressways, and
15 mph for all other NHS roadways.
The FHWA defines congestion on the agency Traffic Congestion
Reliability reporting Web site \96\ as ``an excess of vehicles on a
roadway at a particular time resulting in speeds that are slower--
sometimes much slower--than normal or free flow speeds. (Congestion is)
stop-and-go traffic.'' The Urban Congestion Report, a quarterly
publication produced for FHWA, uses a speed threshold of 45 mph to
define congested travel on Interstates and other highways, in a number
of urban areas across the country. Operating speeds that are below a
``free flow'' speed will generate some level of delay and therefore
could be seen by travelers as a congested condition. The FHWA decided
when establishing the proposed traffic congestion measure to assess
when delays are excessively impacting travel, so that the worst
congestion would be accounted for and, hopefully, addressed. By
accounting for the worst congestion, FHWA believes that the proposed
approach could help reduce overall traffic congestion. For this reason,
FHWA selected proposed thresholds of 35 mph on Interstate and other
highways to express excessive (rather than just congested conditions at
45 mph), and 15 mph on principle arterials and all other roadways on
the NHS to identify excessive delay when speed limits can be as low as
25 mph on these roads. The threshold for Interstates and other highways
is below the threshold FHWA uses to define congested travel in the
Urban Congestion Report. However, FHWA believes that the proposed
thresholds represent operating speeds that would excessively impact
travel times. The FHWA encourages public comment on these proposed
thresholds and invites alternative approaches to define the threshold
at which excessive delay would occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ Traffic Congestion Reliability, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time would be determined by
the State DOT 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. This time threshold would be determined by
dividing the travel time segment length by the excessive delay
threshold speed corresponding to the roadway functional level (35 mph
or 15 mph) and converting the quotient to a time unit of seconds. For
example, if a travel time segment on an Interstate is \1/2\ mile in
length, then the Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time for that segment
would be the travel time at 35 mph. The calculation would be Segment
length (.5 mile) divided by threshold speed (35 mph) which equals .0142
hours, or 51.4 seconds.
Excessive Delay--The FHWA is proposing in section 490.711(d) the
method to determine the amount of excessive delay occurring during each
5-minute interval for a Travel Time Segment within the travel time data
set for which travel times were recorded. The excessive delay would be
determined by comparing the recorded average travel time \97\ from the
5-minute bin to the Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time for the
corresponding Travel Time Segment discussed in the previous paragraph.
The excessive delay would need to be determined for every 5-minute
interval for every hour and every day during a calendar year. The
methodology proposed in the regulation identifies an arithmetic
difference between the measured and an Excessive Delay Threshold Travel
Time for each 5-minute bin for individual reporting segment as the
travel time segment delay or the reporting segment delay (RSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ The NMPRDS provides a recorded average travel time (in
seconds) from the 5-minute bin for Travel Time Segment that is an
average travel time of all the probes that traveled through that
Travel Time Segment during a 5-minute interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The RSD, as calculated above, would result in a positive or
negative amount

[[Page 23886]]

of time. Any positive RSD values would be considered the additional
amount of time, during the corresponding 5-minute time interval, each
user of the roadway would have needed to traverse the Travel Time
Segment as compared to traveling at the threshold speed. Any negative
RSD times would represent 5-minute times in which travel is not
excessively delayed. These negative RSD values would change to ``0''
seconds. Any positive RSD values that are calculated to be above 5
minutes would be capped at 5 minutes to prevent excessive delay from
being counted twice. The excessive delay for the travel time segment
would be determined by converting the RSD values (0 or greater than 0)
to a unit of ``hours,'' by dividing the RSD by 3,600 seconds/hour.
Total Excessive Delay--The FHWA is proposing in section 490.711(e)
the method State DOTs would use to calculate the excessive delay metric
for each reporting segment where this value represents the accumulated
amount of additional time, in hours, that were experienced by all
traffic throughout a full calendar year as a result of being
excessively delayed. The metric would be calculated by first
multiplying (1) the Excessive Delay values for a particular 5-minute
bin by (2) the estimated traffic volume for a recorded 5-minute
interval (which would be based on the hourly volume for the hour that
corresponds to the 5-minute interval). That calculation would be done
for every 5-minute bin of every day for the entire calendar year. Then,
the product of those calculations would be added up for a reporting
segment to produce the metric--Total Excessive Delay (in vehicle
hours), an annual metric. This proposed calculation method would be
based only on recorded travel times in the travel time data set as FHWA
is assuming in this rulemaking that any missing or null travel time
values would be occurring when travel times are consistent with free
flow speeds. The FHWA believes that this assumption is valid as missing
or null values would likely occur when very few or no vehicles are
using the roadway.
The FHWA is proposing for State DOTs to use estimated hourly
traffic volumes to expand the travel times, determined by probing a
sample of highway users, to represent the total excessive delay
experienced by roadway users. An example of this proposed method is
provided in Figure 9 below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.014

In this example, 178 highway probes were recorded (from mobile
phones, vehicles, or portable navigation devices) during a 5-minute
period of time which, on average, took 82 seconds to traverse a 0.50
mile long roadway segment located on a freeway. These highway users
were experiencing excessive delay as the threshold time for this
roadway segment is 51 seconds. For this example, the additional time
experienced by each highway user as a result of being excessively
delayed is estimated to be 0.009 hours. This delay per highway user is
expanded to represent all traffic by multiplying the delay per user,
0.009 hours, by the estimated traffic volume during the 5 minute
interval, 433.3 vehicles. The product of 3.900 vehicle-hours is the
Total Excessive Delay for the 5 minute interval. The final metric for
this example would then carry out this same process for every 5 minute
interval through a full calendar year and for each travel time segment
within the reporting segment.
The FHWA recognizes that the proposed method would apply a delay
per highway user to total vehicles to identify the total excessive
delay of vehicles. The FHWA elected to use this approach as it is
believed that traffic volume data are the most accurate and complete
data available on the use of the highways. As previously discussed,

[[Page 23887]]

the FHWA desires to move to a future measure that would account for all
travelers and encourages public comment as to how and when this can be
accomplished in a reliable and accurate manner at a national level.
The FHWA is proposing section 490.711(f) that would require State
DOTs to report annually on the Total Excessive Delay (as measured in
vehicle-hours) metric for each applicable reporting segment on the NHS.
State DOTs would report the annual outcomes to the HPMS by June 15th of
the following year (i.e., metrics for calendar year 2017 would be
reported no later than June 15, 2018). Specifically, FHWA is proposing
that State DOTs would report annually the following to the HPMS for
each reporting segment:
NPMRDS TMC codes or standard HPMS location referencing;
and
Total Excessive Delay metric, to the nearest one hundredth
hours.
The FHWA intends to issue additional guidance on how State DOTs
could report these data to HPMS. As discussed previously with respect
to proposed sections 490.511 and 490.611, FHWA recognizes the level of
effort to conflate travel time reporting segments to align with a
referenced highway network. For this reason, FHWA is not proposing a
requirement for State DOTs to conflate the travel time reporting
segments to the HPMS roadway network. The FHWA intends to conduct this
conflation, if needed, if State DOTs choose to report the metric by
Travel Time Segment reference codes.
Discussion of Section 490.713 Calculation of Congestion Measure
The FHWA is proposing the method to be used by State DOTs and MPOs
to calculate the traffic congestion measure, Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay Per Capita, proposed in section 490.707. The FHWA, State DOTs,
and MPOs would all use this method to assess performance, establish
targets, and/or report on performance. The measure would be calculated
by summing the Total Excessive Delay, calculated as proposed in section
490.711, of all reporting segments in the applicable area and then
dividing this total by the population for the applicable area. As
discussed in section 490.703, this measure is calculated for each
urbanized area with a population over 1 million that contain
nonattainment or maintenance areas for any of the criteria pollutants
covered under the CMAQ program. A single measure would be determined
for urbanized areas that intersect with multiple State and metropolitan
planning area boundaries and for each applicable area within a State
boundary. For example, in the State of Maryland, based on the 2010 U.S.
Decennial Census and areas designated nonattainment or maintenance at
the time of this rulemaking for O3, CO, and/or PM; there are
three TMAs that are applicable to this measure including Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and Washington DC In this case, for Maryland, the State DOTs
and MPOs with NHS mainline highways in these TMAs would need to
calculate three identical measures for the entire area, and report
associated targets: One for the Baltimore area, and one each for the
Philadelphia area and the Washington DC area.
5. Subpart H: National Performance Management Measures for the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions
In this section, FHWA describes the proposed changes to Subpart H,
which would establish a performance measure for assessing on-road
mobile source emissions. The discussion of the proposed requirements is
as follows:
Section 490.801 discusses the purpose of the subpart;
Section 490.803 describes the applicability of the
subpart;
Section 490.805 presents the definitions;
Section 490.807 discusses the performance measure;
Section 490.809 describes the data requirements;
Section 490.811 identifies how to calculate performance
metric;
Section 490.813 presents how to calculate performance
measure.
Discussion of Section 490.801 Purpose
The FHWA is required, under 23 U.S.C. 150(c), to establish
performance measures for State DOTs to assess on-road mobile source
emissions for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ program. The FHWA
proposes to establish in this subpart a measure for State DOTs and MPOs
to use to assess the reduction of the criteria pollutants and
applicable precursors under the CMAQ program through the programming of
projects.
Discussion of Section 490.803 Applicability
In section 490.803(a), FHWA proposes that the on-road mobile source
emissions performance measure would be applicable to State DOTs and
MPOs that received funding from the CMAQ program that contain areas
designated as nonattainment or maintenance for the O3, CO,
or PM (PM10 and PM2.5) NAAQS under the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
Similar to the traffic congestion measure, for this measure MPOs
serving urbanized areas over 1 million in population with nonattainment
and maintenance areas have additional performance reporting
requirements (See 23 U.S.C. 149(l)). Because of the special emphasis
for these areas, FHWA proposes that these areas would be subject to the
full set of performance requirements. The FHWA anticipates that MPOs
serving in these areas over 1 million in population with nonattainment
or maintenance areas could calculate and use the proposed performance
measure to assess on-road mobile source emissions in their applicable
planning area as these organizations have more experience and
capability to manage their air quality program through the
transportation conformity process and the implementation of the CMAQ
program, including estimating emissions reductions and reporting to the
CMAQ Public Access System.\98\ Accordingly, FHWA's proposal includes
some additional requirements for the MPOs serving larger urbanized
areas that are described in more detail throughout this NPRM. For
nonattainment and maintenance areas defined in section 490.803(a) with
a population below this threshold, even though they are not subject to
the additional CMAQ performance plan reporting requirements, FHWA
proposes that the measure would apply in these areas, but with more
flexibility. The FHWA believes that since all O3, CO, or PM
nonattainment and maintenance areas, regardless of size, are eligible
to receive CMAQ funds and all CMAQ-funded projects must demonstrate an
emissions reduction, then the measure should apply to all areas. The
FHWA believes that planning organizations serving smaller urbanized
areas, including ``donut areas'' (as defined in 40 CFR 93.101) could
either calculate and use the performance measure or support the State
DOT and rely on it to calculate and use the performance measure to
assess on-road mobile source emissions. State DOTs would also calculate
and use the measure in ``isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance
areas,'' as defined in 40 CFR 93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ CMAQ Performance Plan as required by 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 490.803(b), FHWA proposes that State DOTs and MPOs that
do not contain any O3, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance areas would not be
required to calculate and report on on-

[[Page 23888]]

road mobile source emission performance as these State DOTs and MPOs
are allowed for flexibility in spending their CMAQ funds whereby
projects are not required to adhere to specific CMAQ eligibility
requirements can be funded by CMAQ.
Discussion of Section 490.805 Definitions
The FHWA proposes definitions associated with the on-road mobile
source emissions performance measures that are used in the proposed
regulation. It includes definitions for Donut Areas, Isolated Rural
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, and On-Road Mobile Source.
The FHWA proposes to utilize the same definition for donut area and
isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas, as found in the
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.101. The FHWA proposes to
define on-road mobile sources as emissions from vehicles that you would
typically expect to find on our roadways, such as cars, trucks, and
buses.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ ``What is Transportation Conformity?'' training slides
https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/whatisconformity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Section 490.807 National Performance Management Measures
for CMAQ Program: On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
In section 490.807, FHWA proposes the measure of ``Total Emissions
Reduction'' to assess on-road mobile source emissions. The measure will
be the 2-year and 4-year cumulative reported emissions reduction
resulting from CMAQ projects, by applicable criteria pollutants
(O3, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and
applicable precursors (e.g., VOC and NOX are precursors for
O3 and PM) for which the area is in nonattainment or
maintenance. For example, in the case of O3, a measure will
need to be established for each of O3's precursors,
NOX and VOC. The FHWA would like, through this rulemaking,
to establish a measure that would rely on the existing processes State
DOTs are using to manage, track, and report projects as part of the
CMAQ program. For this reason, FHWA elected to base the proposed
measure on the estimated emission reductions reported by State DOTs for
CMAQ-funded projects through the CMAQ Public Access System. As
discussed in the Measure Analysis section of the rulemaking, FHWA
believes that this approach provides the best opportunity to
effectively implement the MAP-21 performance requirements for on-road
mobile source emissions. The data and tools to support the performance
measure are readily available at a national level and are already in
use today. The FHWA believes that collecting emissions data on a
project-by-project basis through vehicle probing or another means would
be cost prohibitive and would delay implementation because enough pre
and post project completion data would not be available to accurately
measure the actual reductions. The FHWA is proposing in this rulemaking
to establish a measure that expresses the total emissions reduced per
fiscal year, for all CMAQ-funded projects by pollutant and applicable
precursors for which the area has been designated as nonattainment or
maintenance. The emissions reductions would be summed for each fiscal
year and cumulated by applicable pollutant and precursor to represent
total reductions estimated after 2 fiscal years and after 4 fiscal
years.
Discussion of Section 490.809 Data Requirements
The FHWA proposes to use the CMAQ Public Access System \100\ as the
data source for the measure, based on data available as of July 1 of
the calendar year in which a CMAQ performance plan required in 23
U.S.C. 149(l) or State Biennial Performance Reports, required in
section 490.107, is due. The CMAQ Public Access System is populated
from the State DOT CMAQ annual report \101\ which includes project
information submitted through the CMAQ project tracking system.\102\
The FHWA uses these yearly submissions through the CMAQ Public Access
System to maintain a database of CMAQ investments as required by 23
U.S.C. 149(i)(1). Drawing from the information in the database, the
CMAQ Public Access System provides an opportunity for the general
public and project sponsors to have access to information submitted
through the annual reporting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ The Public Access System is available at: https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/cmaq_pub/HomePage/.
\101\ Guidance on CMAQ annual reporting can be found in section
IX. C. of the CMAQ Interim Program Guidance under MAP-21, November
12, 2013.
\102\ Information on the CMAQ project tracking system can be
found at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reporting/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State DOTs report estimated emissions reductions of CMAQ projects
for the first year that a project is obligated and only the first time
a project is entered into the system, not each time the project
receives CMAQ funds, to avoid double counting of benefits. The
quantitative emissions reduction estimates are reported for each CMAQ-
funded project in kilograms (kg) per day for applicable criteria
pollutants (and their precursors) for which the area is nonattainment
or maintenance. These five pollutants or precursors include CO,
PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and volatile organic compound (VOC). Both NOX and VOC are
potential precursors to O3, PM10 and
PM2.5. While no single method is specified in the CMAQ
Guidance for estimating emissions, every effort should be taken to
ensure that the estimates are credible and based on a reproducible and
logical analytical procedure. The FHWA is working to develop a tool kit
of best practices to improve the assumptions and calculations used to
quantitatively estimate emissions.
For the purpose of establishing targets in section 490.105, FHWA
proposes the annual reports shall include for each project, the
applicable nonattainment or maintenance area and MPO for which the
project is located, and quantified emissions reductions for all
applicable criteria pollutants (and their precursors) for which the
area is nonattainment or maintenance. For those projects that do not
include a quantified emissions reduction (i.e., public education and
marketing), the CMAQ guidance allows for a qualitative assessment. This
option is still allowed, but those projects will not be considered for
the purposes of implementing the on-road mobile source emissions
measure.
In 490.809(b), FHWA is proposing a period of approximately 120 days
for FHWA to review and approve the data for publication in the CMAQ
Public Access System. Considering this time allowance, FHWA is
proposing that specific dates be established for when FHWA approves the
State DOT's annual reports and when data are available for extraction
from the CMAQ Public Access System for the purpose of implementing the
on-road mobile source emissions measure. These dates are necessary in
order to report the measures and establish targets in a timely manner.
The FHWA is proposing the following dates:
March 1--The FHWA is proposing that State DOTs enter their
project information for a given fiscal year by March 1st of the
following fiscal year; and
July 1--The FHWA is proposing that it will make available
the data necessary to calculate the on-road mobile source emissions
measure will be in the CMAQ Public Access System by July 1st for
project obligations in the prior fiscal year.

[[Page 23889]]

In 490.809(c), FHWA is proposing to identify nonattainment or
maintenance areas based on the most recent effective designations made
by the EPA when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due
to FHWA. The areas designated at this time will remain as the areas
applicable to this subpart for the duration of the performance period.
For example, for a performance period that begins on October 1, 2017,
and ends on September 30, 2021, FHWA would consider the designated
areas as of October 1, 2018, to be those subject to this subpart even
if the effective nonattainment and maintenance area designations change
during the performance period after this date.
Discussion of Section 490.811 Calculation of Emissions Metric
The FHWA proposes in section 490.811 the method that would be used
by State DOTs and MPOs to 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:
One kg per day is equal to 0.4026 short tons per year. The emissions
reductions would then be summed for all projects within the applicable
reporting area, by criteria pollutant or precursor, for a Federal
fiscal year. The annual emissions reductions (in tons/year) would be
used to calculate the performance measure proposed in section 490.813.
Discussion of Section 490.813 Calculation of Emissions Measure
The FHWA proposes in section 490.813 that State DOTs and MPOs
should calculate on-road mobile source emissions reductions by summing
the annual tons of emissions reduced by CMAQ projects, using the 2 and
4 years of available data from the Public Access System as proposed in
section 490.809 by criteria pollutant or precursor. For example, for
the first proposed performance period that would begin on October 1,
2017, and end on September 30, 2021. So the 2-year total emissions
reductions by criteria pollutant or applicable precursor for the
performance period would reflect project data from Federal fiscal years
from 2018 through 2019, and the 4-year total emissions reductions by
criteria pollutant or applicable precursor for the performance period
would reflect project data from Federal fiscal years from 2018 through
2021.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and available for
examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after
the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and considered to
the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA will also
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons
should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule
may be published at any time after close of the comment period and
after FHWA has had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule constitutes a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and is significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies
and procedures. This action complies with Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 to improve regulation. This action is considered significant
because of widespread public interest in the transformation of the
Federal-aid highway program to be performance-based, although it is not
economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
The FHWA is presenting a Regulatory Impact Analysis (regulatory
analysis or RIA) in support of this NPRM on National Performance
Measures to Assess Performance of the National Highway System, Freight
Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program. The regulatory analysis estimates the
economic impact, in terms of costs and benefits, on Federal, State, and
local governments, as well as private entities regulated under this
action, as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563.
The economic impacts are measured on an incremental basis, relative to
current practices.
This section of the NPRM identifies the estimated costs and
benefits resulting from the proposed rule in order to inform policy
makers and the public of the relative value of the current proposal.
The complete RIA may be accessed from the rulemaking's docket (FHWA-
2013-0054).
The cornerstone of MAP-21's highway program transformation is the
transition to a performance-based program. In accordance with the law,
State DOTs would invest resources in projects to achieve performance
targets that make progress toward national goal areas. The MAP-21
establishes national performance goals for system reliability, freight
movement and economic vitality, and environmental sustainability. The
FHWA must promulgate a rule to establish performance measures to assess
performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS; assess
freight movement on the Interstate System, and to carry out the CMAQ
program and assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source
emissions. As required by MAP-21, this NPRM identifies the following
performance measures for which State DOTs and MPOs must collect and
report data, establish targets for performance, and make progress
toward achievement of targets:
1. Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times;
2. Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable Travel
Times;
3. Percent of the Interstate System where peak hour travel times
meet expectations;
4. Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where peak hour travel times
meet expectations;
5. Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable
Truck Travel Times;
6. Percent of the Interstate System Mileage Uncongested;
7. Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita; and
8. Cumulative emissions reduction resulting from CMAQ projects by
criteria pollutant for which the area is in nonattainment or
maintenance.
Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule
To estimate costs for the proposed rule, FHWA assessed the level of
effort, expressed in labor hours and the labor categories, and capital
needed to comply with each component of the proposed rule. Level of
effort by labor category is monetized with loaded wage rates to
estimate total costs.
Because there is some uncertainty regarding the availability of
NPMRDS data for use by State DOTs and MPOs, FHWA estimated the cost of
the proposed rule according to two scenarios. Under Scenario 1, FHWA
assumes that it will provide State DOTs and MPOs with the required data
from NPMRDS. Table 13 displays the total cost of the proposed rule for
the 11-year

[[Page 23890]]

study period (2016-2026).\103\ Total costs over 11 years are estimated
to be $165.3 million undiscounted, $117.4 million discounted at 7
percent, and $141.6 million discounted at 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ In FHWA's first two performance measure NPRMs, it assessed
costs over a 10-year study period. Because FHWA is now proposing
individual effective dates for each of its performance measure rules
rather than a common effective date, the timing of the full
implementation of the measures has shifted. Using an 11-year study
period ensures that the cost assessment includes the first 2
performance periods following the effective date of the rulemaking,
which is comparable to what the 10-year study period assessed in the
first two NPRMs. An 11-year study period captures the first year
costs related to preparing and submitting the Initial Performance
Report and a complete cycle of the incremental costs that would be
incurred by State DOTs and MPOs for assembling and reporting all
required measures as a result of the proposed rule. FHWA anticipates
that the recurring costs beyond this timeframe would be comparable
to those estimated in the 10-year period of analysis.

Table 13--Total Cost of the Proposed Rule Under Scenario 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-Year total cost
Cost components -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 490.103--Data Requirements.............................. $21,241,714 $15,226,570 $18,275,559
Intake and Process DOT Travel Time Data..................... 15,918,501 11,180,489 13,578,804
NPMRDS Data Acquisition..................................... 4,000,000 2,809,433 3,412,081
NPRMDS Data Training........................................ 489,800 457,757 475,534
NPMRDS Data Reconciliation.................................. 833,414 778,891 809,139
Section 490.105-490.109--Reporting Requirements................. 90,529,176 63,693,723 77,239,133
Document and Submit Description of Coordination Between 2,134,912 2,134,912 2,134,912
State DOTs and MPOs........................................
Establish and Update Performance Targets.................... 40,763,607 29,114,925 35,021,902
Prepare and Submit Initial Performance Report............... 919,236 919,236 919,236
Reporting on Performance Targets Progress................... 31,269,138 21,219,453 26,279,023
Prepare CMAQ Performance Plan............................... 13,465,179 9,137,563 11,316,326
Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving Performance 1,933,462 1,132,171 1,528,071
Targets....................................................
Adjust HPMS to Handle Data in TMC Format and Design Post- 24,804 23,181 24,082
Submission Reports.........................................
HPMS Data Processing (e.g., Data Verification).............. 18,838 12,282 15,581
Section 490.511--Calculation of Performance Metrics for NHS 5,478,984 3,897,015 4,698,453
Performance....................................................
Calculate LOTTR............................................. 2,828,595 1,961,095 2,399,861
Estimate Desired Level of PHTTR for All Roads............... 787,736 654,465 723,310
Calculate PHTTR............................................. 1,862,653 1,281,455 1,575,282
Section 490.513--Calculation of Performance Measure for NHS 4,285,750 3,111,923 3,709,859
Performance....................................................
Develop Reliability Performance Measures.................... 3,084,798 2,239,901 2,670,283
Develop Travel Time Performance Measures.................... 1,200,952 872,023 1,039,576
Section 490.611--Calculation of Performance Metrics for Freight 3,306,150 2,407,408 2,863,507
Mobility.......................................................
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Establish Process..... 183,675 171,659 178,325
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Update Average........ 1,469,400 1,032,045 1,253,428
Calculate Truck Reliability: Establish Process.............. 183,675 171,659 178,325
Calculate Truck Reliability: Update Metric.................. 1,469,400 1,032,045 1,253,428
Section 490.613--Calculation of Performance Measures for Freight 14,807,031 10,751,525 12,817,359
Reliability....................................................
Develop Freight Travel Time Performance Measures............ 7,403,516 5,375,762 6,408,679
Develop Freight Reliability Performance Measures............ 7,403,516 5,375,762 6,408,679
Section 490.711--Calculation of Performance Metric for CMAQ 5,128,771 3,710,508 4,429,895
Congestion.....................................................
Calculate Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time............. 1,282,193 927,627 1,107,474
Identify all 5-minute Bins with Travel Times above the 1,165,630 818,690 994,306
Threshold Speed and Calculate Excessive Delay..............
Develop Hourly Traffic Volumes in Order to Weight Segments.. 1,515,319 1,145,502 1,333,810
Finalize Weighted Metrics for Reporting..................... 1,165,630 818,690 994,306
Section 490.713--Calculation of Congestion Measure.............. 6,612,300 4,801,253 5,723,782
Develop Congestion Performance Measure...................... 6,612,300 4,801,253 5,723,782
Section 490.811--Calculation of Emissions Metric................ 13,285,826 9,331,408 11,333,079
Develop Emission Performance Metric for Some CMAQ Projects.. 13,285,826 9,331,408 11,333,079
Section 490.813--Calculation of Emissions Measure............... 593,412 430,882 513,673
Develop Emission Performance Measure........................ 593,412 430,882 513,673
-----------------------------------------------
Total Cost of Proposed Rule............................. 165,269,115 117,362,215 141,604,299
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Under Scenario 2, which represents ``worst case'' conditions, State
DOTs would choose to independently acquire the necessary data. Table 14
displays the total cost of the proposed rule for the 11-year study
period (2016-2026). Total costs over 11 years are estimated to be
$224.5 million undiscounted, $158.9 million discounted at 7 percent,
and $192.1 million discounted at 3 percent.

[[Page 23891]]

Table 14--Total Cost of the Proposed Rule Under Scenario 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-Year total cost
Cost components -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 490.103--Data Requirements.............................. $80,425,414 $56,794,724 $68,760,455
Acquire Freight and General Traffic Data.................... 51,000,000 35,820,266 43,504,034
Adjust Contract for Freight-only Data....................... 9,000,000 6,321,223 7,677,183
Remove Estimated Data Values from Database.................. 3,183,700 2,236,098 2,715,761
Intake and Process.......................................... 15,918,501 11,180,489 13,578,804
Data Training............................................... 489,800 457,757 475,534
Data Reconciliation......................................... 833,414 778,891 809,139
Section 490.105-490.109--Reporting Requirements................. 90,529,176 63,693,723 77,239,133
Document and Submit Description of Coordination Between 2,134,912 2,134,912 2,134,912
State DOTs and MPOs........................................
Establish and Update Performance Targets.................... 40,763,607 29,114,925 35,021,902
Prepare and Submit Initial Performance Report............... 919,236 919,236 919,236
Reporting on Performance Targets Progress................... 31,269,138 21,219,453 26,279,023
Prepare CMAQ Performance Plan............................... 13,465,179 9,137,563 11,316,326
Assess Significant Progress Toward Achieving Performance 1,933,462 1,132,171 1,528,071
Targets....................................................
Adjust HPMS to Handle Data in TMC Format and Design Post- 24,804 23,181 24,082
submission Reports.........................................
Data Processing (e.g., Data Verification)................... 18,838 12,282 15,581
Section 490.511--Calculation of Performance Metrics for NHS 5,478,984 3,897,015 4,698,453
Performance....................................................
Calculate LOTTR............................................. 2,828,595 1,961,095 2,399,861
Estimate Desired Level of PHTTR for All Roads............... 787,736 654,465 723,310
Calculate PHTTR............................................. 1,862,653 1,281,455 1,575,282
Section 490.513--Calculation of Performance Measure for NHS 4,285,750 3,111,923 3,709,859
Performance....................................................
Develop Reliability Performance Measures.................... 3,084,798 2,239,901 2,670,283
Develop Travel Time Performance Measures.................... 1,200,952 872,023 1,039,576
Section 490.611--Calculation of Performance Metrics for Freight 3,306,150 2,407,408 2,863,507
Mobility.......................................................
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Establish Process..... 183,675 171,659 178,325
Calculate Average Truck Travel Speed: Update Average........ 1,469,400 1,032,045 1,253,428
Calculate Truck Reliability: Establish Process.............. 183,675 171,659 178,325
Calculate Truck Reliability: Update Metric.................. 1,469,400 1,032,045 1,253,428
Section 490.613--Calculation of Performance Measures for Freight 14,807,031 10,751,525 12,817,359
Reliability....................................................
Develop Freight Travel Time Performance Measures............ 7,403,516 5,375,762 6,408,679
Develop Freight Reliability Performance Measures............ 7,403,516 5,375,762 6,408,679
Section 490.711--Calculation of Performance Metric for CMAQ 5,128,771 3,710,508 4,429,895
Congestion.....................................................
Calculate Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time............. 1,282,193 927,627 1,107,474
Identify All 5-minute Bins with Travel Times Above the 1,165,630 818,690 994,306
Threshold Speed and Calculate Excessive Delay..............
Develop Hourly Traffic Volumes in Order to Weight Segments.. 1,515,319 1,145,502 1,333,810
Finalize Weighted Metrics for Reporting..................... 1,165,630 818,690 994,306
Section 490.713--Calculation of Congestion Measure.............. 6,612,300 4,801,253 5,723,782
Develop Congestion Performance Measure...................... 6,612,300 4,801,253 5,723,782
Section 490.811--Calculation of Emissions Metric................ 13,285,826 9,331,408 11,333,079
Develop Emission Performance Metric for Some CMAQ Projects.. 13,285,826 9,331,408 11,333,079
Section 490.813--Calculation of Emissions Measure............... 593,412 430,882 513,673
Develop Emission Performance Measure........................ 593,412 430,882 513,673
-----------------------------------------------
Total Cost of Proposed Rule............................. 224,452,815 158,930,370 192,089,196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The costs in Tables 14 and 15 assume a portion of MPOs will
establish their own targets and a portion will adopt State DOT targets.
For the performance measures that apply to all State DOTs and MPOs
(i.e., Travel Time Reliability and Freight Movement), it is assumed
that State DOTs and MPOs serving TMAs \104\ would use staff to
establish performance targets and all other MPOs would adopt State DOT
targets rather than establish their own targets and would therefore not
incur any incremental costs. The FHWA made this assumption because
larger MPOs may have more resources available to develop performance
targets. The FHWA believes that this is a conservative estimate as
larger MPOs may elect not to establish their own targets for any
variety of reasons, including resource availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ A Transportation Management Area (TMA) is an urbanized
area having a population of over 200,000, or otherwise requested by
the Governor and the MPO and officially designated by FHWA and FTA.
23 U.S.C. 134(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Break-Even Analysis
Currently, State DOTs differ from State to State in the way they
evaluate the performance of the NHS, congestion, on-road mobile source
emissions, and freight movement. These differences hinder accurate
analysis at the national level. The proposed rulemaking would not only
establish uniform performance measures, but also would establish
processes that (1) State DOTs and MPOs use to report measures and
establish performance targets and (2) FHWA uses to assess progress that
State DOTs have made toward achieving targets.
Upon implementation, FHWA expects that the proposed rule would
result in some significant benefits that are not easily monetized, but
nonetheless deserve mention in this analysis. Specifically, the
proposed rule would allow for more informed decisionmaking on
congestion-, freight-, and air-quality-related project, program, and
policy choices. The proposed rule also would yield greater
accountability because the MAP-21-mandated reporting would increase
visibility and transparency. In addition,

[[Page 23892]]

the proposed rule would help focus the Federal-aid highway program on
achieving balanced performance outcomes.
The expected benefits discussed above (i.e., more informed
decisionmaking, greater accountability, and the focus on making
progress toward the national goal for infrastructure condition) would
lead to an enhanced performance of the NHS due to reduced congestion,
improved freight movement, and reduced emissions. The benefits, while
real and substantial, are difficult to forecast and monetize.
Therefore, FHWA addresses this issue by using the break-even analysis
method suggested by OMB Circular A-4. Break-even analyses calculate the
threshold a specific variable must achieve in order for benefits to
equal costs while holding every other variable in the analysis
constant. The FHWA performed three separate break-even analyses based
on the estimated costs associated with: (1) Enhancing performance of
the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS by relieving congestion;
(2) reducing emissions; and, (3) improving freight movement.
For the break-even analyses associated with enhancing the
performance of the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS, the costs
associated with the following proposed rule sections are summed
together to estimate the total cost of provisions aimed at reducing
congestion:
Section 490.103. Sixty percent of the cost \105\ of
obtaining data requirements;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\105\ Sixty percent is assumed because three of the five metrics
(LOTTR, PHTTR, and Total Excessive Delay) are calculated from NPMRDS
and are aimed at improving system performance and reducing
congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.105. Approximately 63 percent of the cost
\106\ of establishing performance targets;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ Approximately 63 percent is assumed because five of the
eight performance measures (Reliability on the Interstate System,
Reliability on the non-Interstate NHS, Peak Hour Travel Time on the
Interstate System, Peak Hour Travel Time on the non-Interstate NHS,
and Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita) are aimed at
improving system performance and reducing congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Approximately 63 percent of the cost
\107\ of documenting and submitting a description of coordination
between State DOTs and MPOs;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Approximately 63 percent of the cost
\108\ of preparing and submitting Initial Performance Reports;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\108\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Approximately 63 percent of the cost
\109\ of reporting performance targets;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Half the cost \110\ of preparing CMAQ
performance plan;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\110\ Fifty percent is assumed because one of the two CMAQ
performance measures (Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita) is
aimed at improving system performance and reducing congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Sixty percent of the cost \111\ of
adjusting HPMS and processing data;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ Sixty percent is assumed because three of the five metrics
(LOTTR, PHTTR, and Total Excessive Delay) are aimed at improving
system performance and reducing congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.109. Cost of assessing significant progress
for NHPP measures;
Section 490.511. Cost of calculating system performance
metrics;
Section 490.513. Cost of calculating system performance
measures;
Section 490.711. Cost of calculating congestion metric;
and
Section 490.713. Cost of calculating congestion measure.
Table 15 presents the results from the break-even analysis
associated with enhancing performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS under Scenario 1 (i.e., FHWA provides NPMRDS data to
State DOTs).
The results represent the passenger car travel time (in hours) that
would need to be saved in order to justify the costs. The analysis
shows that the proposed rule would need to result in approximately
354,000 hours of passenger car travel time saved per year, or 3.9
million hours over 11 years. To provide context, private commuters in
498 urban areas across the United States experience 5.5 billion hours
of travel delay per year. As a result, the reduction represents a less
than 0.01 percent decrease in the amount of travel delay per year for
major U.S. urban areas.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ Texas Transportation Institute's (TTI) ``2012 Annual Urban
Mobility Report,'' 2013.

Table 15--Break-Even Analysis of Interstate System and Non-Interstate NHS Performance (Reliability, Peak Hour
Travel Time, and Congestion) Under Scenario 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Average commuter Number of hours number of hours
Undiscounted 11-year costs value of time ($ of travel that of travel that
per hour) need to be need to be
reduced reduced
a b c = a / b d = c / 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$88,387,756............................................ $22.72 3,891,103 353,737
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.

Table 16 presents the results from the break-even analysis
associated with enhancing performance of the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS under Scenario 2 (i.e., State DOTs independently acquire
the necessary data). The results represent the passenger car travel
time (in hours) that would need to be saved in order to justify the
costs. The analysis shows that the proposed rule would need to result
in approximately 496,000 hours of passenger car travel time saved per
year, or 5.5 million hours over 11 years. To provide context, private
commuters in 498 urban areas across the United States experience 5.5
billion hours of travel delay per year. This reduction represents a
0.01 percent decrease in the amount of travel delay per year for major
U.S. urban areas.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\113\ TTI's ``2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report,'' 2013.

[[Page 23893]]

Table 16--Break-Even Analysis of Interstate System and Non-Interstate NHS Performance (Reliability, Peak Hour
Travel Time, and Congestion) Under Scenario 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Average commuter Number of hours number of hours
Undiscounted 11-year costs value of time ($ of travel that of travel that
per hour) need to be need to be
reduced reduced
a b c = a / b d = c / 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$123,897,977........................................... $22.72 5,454,373 495,852
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.

Table 187 presents the results from the break-even analysis
associated with the Freight Movement on the Interstate System measures
under Scenario 1 (i.e., FHWA provides NPMRDS data to State DOTs and
MPOs). The costs associated with the following proposed rule sections
are summed together to estimate the total cost of provisions aimed at
reducing freight congestion:
Section 490.103. Forty percent of the cost \114\ of the
data requirements;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\114\ Forty percent is assumed because two of the five metrics
(Truck Travel Time Reliability and Average Truck Speed) calculated
from NPMRDS are aimed at freight movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.105. Twenty-five percent of the cost \115\ of
establishing performance targets;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ Twenty-five percent is assumed because two of the eight
performance measures (Freight Movement Reliability and Average Truck
Speed) are aimed at reducing truck congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Twenty-five percent of the cost \116\ of
documenting and submitting a description of coordination between State
DOTs and MPOs;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Twenty-five percent of the cost \117\ of
preparing and submitting Initial Performance Reports;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Twenty-five percent of the cost \118\ of
reporting performance targets;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\118\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Forty percent of the cost \119\ of
adjusting HPMS and processing data;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\119\ Forty percent is assumed because two of the five metrics
(Truck Travel Time Reliability and Average Truck Speed) calculated
from NPMRDS are aimed at freight movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.109. Cost of assessing significant progress
for NHFP measures;
Section 490.611. Cost of calculating freight movement
metrics; and
Section 490.613. Cost of calculating freight movement
measures.
The results represent the amount of truck travel time (in hours)
which would need to be saved in order to justify the costs associated
with the Freight Movement on the Interstate System measures. The
analysis shows that the proposed rule would need to result in
approximately 168,000 hours of freight travel time saved per year, or
1.8 million hours over 11 years. This reduction represents a less than
0.1 percent decrease in the amount of freight travel delay per year for
major U.S. urban areas.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\120\ Trucks in 498 urban areas across the U.S. experience 353.1
million hours of travel delay per year, according to the TTI's
``2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report,'' 2013.

Table 17--Break-Even Analysis of Freight Performance (Freight Reliability, Average Truck Speed) Under Scenario 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Average truck Number of hours number of hours
Undiscounted 11-year costs value of time ($ of travel that of travel that
per hour) need to be need to be
reduced reduced
a b c = a / b d = c / 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$46,883,670............................................ $25.36 1,848,481 168,044
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.

Table 198 presents the results from the break-even analysis
associated with the Freight Movement on the Interstate System measures
under Scenario 2 (i.e., State DOTs independently acquire the necessary
data). The results represent the amount of truck travel time (in hours)
which would need to be saved in order to justify the costs associated
with the Freight Movement on the Interstate System measures. The
analysis shows that the proposed rule would need to result in
approximately 253,000 hours of freight travel time saved per year, or
2.8 million hours over 11 years. This reduction represents a 0.1
percent decrease in the amount of freight travel delay per year for
major U.S. urban areas.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ Trucks in 498 urban areas across the U.S. experience 353.1
million hours of travel delay per year, according to the TTI's
``2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report,'' 2013.

[[Page 23894]]

Table 18--Break-Even Analysis of Freight Performance (Freight Reliability, Average Truck Speed) Under Scenario 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Average truck Number of hours number of hours
Undiscounted 11-year costs value of time ($ of travel that of travel that
per hour) need to be need to be
reduced reduced
a b c = a / b d = c / 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$70,557,150............................................ $25.36 2,781,855 252,896
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.

Table 19 presents the results from the break-even analysis to
estimate the reduction in pollutant tons \122\ needed to be achieved in
order to justify the costs associated with the Emissions performance
measures. The costs associated with the following proposed rule
sections are summed together to estimate the total cost of provisions
aimed at reducing emissions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\122\ Includes VOCs, NOX, PM2.5, and CO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.105. Approximately 13 percent of the cost
\123\ of establishing performance targets;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ Approximately 13 percent is assumed because one of the
eight performance measures (Total Emissions Reduction) is aimed at
reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Approximately 13 percent of the cost
\124\ of documenting and submitting a description of coordination
between State DOTs and MPOs;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\124\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Approximately 13 percent of the cost
\125\ of preparing and submitting Initial Performance Reports;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\125\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Approximately 13 percent of the cost
\126\ of reporting performance targets;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.107. Half the cost \127\ of preparing CMAQ
performance plan;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\127\ Fifty percent is assumed because one of the two CMAQ
performance measures (Total Emissions Reduction) is aimed at
reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 490.811. Cost of calculating emissions metric; and
Section 490.813. Cost of calculating emissions measure.
The costs associated with the Emissions performance measure are
identical under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 because State DOTs would not
need data from NPMRDS. Therefore, FHWA presents one set of results.
With the undiscounted cost of the on-road mobile source emissions
requirements, the analysis estimates the savings in emission tons from
automobiles that the proposed rule would need to save in order for the
proposed rule to be cost-beneficial. The break-even analysis estimates
that a total of 49,000 emission tons would need to be reduced
throughout the 10-year study period, or approximately 4,000 tons
annually. On a pollutant-specific basis, this is approximately
equivalent to 410 tons of VOCs, 275 tons of NOX, two tons of
PM2.5, and 3,730 tons of CO. These reductions represent less
than 0.01 percent of the average annual pollutant emission
amounts.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\128\ In 2011, emissions by highway vehicles totaled 3 million
tons VOCs, 4.1 million tons NOX, 183,000 tons
PM2.5, and 34.2 million tons CO. Source: EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, summary data, included in EPA
Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2012 (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/archive.html), and EPA,
``National Emissions Inventory: Air Pollutant Emissions Trends
Data,'' 2012, document posted to the Docket. Because these estimates
are updated over time, there are variations in these data year-to-
year. The FHWA will update the data at the Final Rule stage.

Table 19--Break-Even Analysis of Emissions (Reduced Pollutants) Using Emission Ton Metric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Average emission Number of number of
Undiscounted 11-year costs ton cost ($ per emissions tons emissions tons
long ton) needed to be needed to be
reduced reduced
a b c = a / b d = c / 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$29,997,688............................................ $617.38 48,589 4,417
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Variance in the calculation is due to rounding.
** Please refer to the RIA in the docket for details on the methodology used in the analysis.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on
small entities and has determined that the action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed amendment addresses the obligation of Federal funds to
State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects. The proposed rule affects
two types of entities: State governments and MPOs. State governments do
not meet the definition of a small entity under 5 U.S.C. 601, which
have a population of less than 50,000.
The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, and to qualify
as a small entity they would need to serve less than 50,000 people. The
MPOs serve urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more. As
discussed in the RIA, the proposed rule is expected to impose costs on
MPOs that serve populations exceeding 200,000. Therefore, the MPOs that
incur economic impacts under this proposed rule do not meet the
definition of a small entity.
I hereby certify that this regulatory action would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 23895]]

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The FHWA has determined that this NPRM does not impose unfunded
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $143.1 million or
more in any one year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for
either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the
private sector. The FHWA will publish a final analysis, including its
response to public comments, when it publishes a final rule.
Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which
State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their
participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the
program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program
permits this type of flexibility.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

The FHWA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA has
determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The
FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State
law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge
traditional State governmental functions.

E. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply
to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and
Construction, for further information.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. The DOT has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and
has determined that this proposal contains collection of information
requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
This proposed rule provides definitions and outlines processes for
performance elements of this NPRM. Some burdens in this proposed rule
would be realized in other reporting areas as described below. The PRA
activities that are already covered by existing OMB Clearances have
reference numbers for those clearances as follows:
HPMS information collection, OMB No. 2125-0028 with an expiration
of May 2015 and CMAQ Program OMB 2125-0614 with an expiration date of
(INSERT DATE) -. Any increase in PRA burdens caused by MAP-21 in these
areas will be addressed in PRA approval requests associated with those
rulemakings.
This rulemaking requires the submittal of performance reports. The
DOT has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and has determined
the following:
Respondents: Approximately 262 applicants consisting of State DOTs
and MPOs.
Frequency: Biennially.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 416 hours to
complete and submit the report.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Approximately 65,312 hours
annually.
The FHWA invites interested persons to submit comments on any
aspect of the information collection. Comments submitted on the
information collection proposed in this NPRM will be summarized or
included, or both, in the request for OMB approval of this information
collection.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical
exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this
proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.

I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This action meets applicable standards in Sec. Sec. 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA
certifies that this action would not cause an environmental risk to
health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.

K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking
addresses obligations of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid
highway projects and would not impose any direct compliance
requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required.

L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that this is not a
significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

M. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

The E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues.

N. Privacy Impact Assessment

The FHWA continues to assess the privacy impacts of this proposed
rule as required by section 522(a)(5) of the FY 2005 Omnibus
Appropriations Act,

[[Page 23896]]

Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (December 8, 2004) [set out as a
note to 5 U.S.C. 552a].
The FHWA is proposing the use of the new NPMRDS as the data source
to calculate the metrics for the seven travel time/speed based measures
to ensure consistency and coverage at a national level. This private
sector data set provides average travel times derived from vehicle/
passenger probe data traveling on the NHS. The FHWA recognizes that
probe data is an evolving field and we will continue to evaluate the
privacy risks associated with its use.

O. Regulation Identifier Number

An RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year.
The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to
cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490

Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued in Washington DC, on April 1, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Federal Highway Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR
part 490 as follows:

PART 490--NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 490 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i), and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.

0
2. Revise Subpart A to read as follows:

Subpart A--General Information

Sec.
490.101 Definitions.
490.103 Data requirements.
490.105 Establishment of performance targets.
490.107 Reporting on performance targets.
490.109 Assessing significant progress toward achieving the
performance targets for the National Highway Performance Program and
the National Highway Freight Program.
490.111 Incorporation by reference.

Sec. 490.101 Definitions.

Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply to the
entire part 490:
Attainment area as used in this Part is defined in Sec. 450.104 of
this title, Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions.
Criteria pollutant means any pollutant for which there is
established a NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50. The transportation related
criteria pollutants per 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1) are carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5).
Freight bottleneck, as used in part 490, is defined as a segment of
the Interstate System not meeting thresholds for freight reliability
and congestion, as identified in Sec. 490.613 and any other locations
the State DOT wishes to identify as a bottleneck based on its own
freight plans or related documents, if applicable.
Full extent means continuous collection and evaluation of pavement
condition data over the entire length of the roadway.
Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) is a national level
highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition,
performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's
highways.
Mainline highways means the through travel lanes of any highway.
Mainline highways specifically exclude ramps, shoulders, turn lanes,
crossovers, rest areas, and other pavement surfaces that are not part
of the roadway normally traveled by through traffic.
Maintenance area as used in this Part is defined in Sec. 450.104
of this title, Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions.
Measure means an expression based on a metric that is used to
establish targets and to assess progress toward achieving the
established targets (e.g., a measure for flight on-time performance is
percent of flights that arrive on time, and a corresponding metric is
an arithmetic difference between scheduled and actual arrival time for
each flight).
Metric means a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as used in this Part is
defined in Sec. 450.104 of this title, Transportation Planning and
Programming Definitions.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as used in this Part
is defined in Sec. 450.104 of this title, Transportation Planning and
Programming Definitions.
National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is an FHWA database containing
bridge information and inspection data for all highway bridges on
public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including Tribally owned
and federally owned bridges, that are subject to the National Bridge
Inspection Standards (NBIS).
National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) means a
data set derived from vehicle/passenger probe data (sourced from GPS,
navigation units, cell phones) that includes average travel times
representative of all traffic on each segment of the National Highway
System (NHS), and additional travel times representative of freight
trucks for those segments that are on the Interstate System. The data
set includes records that contain average travel times for every 5
minutes of every day (24 hours) of the year recorded and calculated for
every travel time segment where probe data is available. The NPMRDS
does not include any imputed travel time data.
Nonattainment area as used in this Part is defined in Sec. 450.104
of this title, Transportation Planning and Programming Definitions.
Non-urbanized area means a single geographic area that comprises
all of the areas in the State that are not ``urbanized areas'' under 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(34).
Performance period means a determined time period during which
condition/performance is measured and evaluated to: Assess condition/
performance with respect to baseline condition/performance; and track
progress toward the achievement of the targets that represent the
intended condition/performance level at the midpoint and at the end of
that time period. The term ``performance period'' applies to all
proposed measures in this Part, except the measures proposed for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in Subpart B. Each
performance period covers a 4-year duration beginning on a specified
date (provided in Sec. 490.105).
Reporting segment means the length of roadway that the State DOT
and MPOs define for metric calculation and reporting and is comprised
of one or more Travel Time Segments.
Target means a quantifiable level of performance or condition,
expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time
period required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Transportation Management Area (TMA) as used in this Part is
defined in Sec. 450.104 of this title, Transportation Planning and
Programming Definitions.
Travel time data set means either the NPMRDS or an equivalent data
set that is used by State DOTs and MPOs as approved by FHWA, to carry
out the requirements in Subparts E, F, and G of Part 490.

[[Page 23897]]

Travel time reliability means the consistency or dependability of
travel times from day to day or across different times of the day.
Travel time segment means a contiguous stretch of the NHS for which
average travel time data are summarized in the travel time data set.

Sec. 490.103 Data requirements.

(a) In General.--Unless otherwise noted below, the data
requirements in this section applies to the measures identified in
Subparts C through H of this part. Additional data requirements for
specific performance management measures are identified in 23 CFR
sections--
(1) 490.309 for the condition of pavements on the Interstate
System;
(2) 490.309 for the condition of pavements on the non-Interstate
NHS;
(3) 490.409 for the condition of bridges on the NHS;
(4) 490.509 for the performance of the Interstate System;
(5) 490.509 for the performance of the non-Interstate NHS;
(6) 490.609 for the freight movement on the Interstate System;
(7) 490.709 for traffic congestion; and
(8) 490.809 for on-road mobile source emissions.
(b) Urbanized area data--The State DOTs shall submit urbanized area
data, including boundaries of urbanized areas, in accordance with the
HPMS Field Manual for the purpose of the additional targets for
urbanized and non-urbanized areas in Sec. 490.105(e) and IRI rating
determination in Sec. 490.313(b)(1), and establishment and reporting
on targets for the Peak Hour Travel Time measures in Sec. 490.507(b)
and the traffic congestion measure in Sec. 490.707. The boundaries of
urbanized areas shall be identified based on the most recent U.S.
Decennial Census, unless FHWA approves adjustments to the urbanized
area as provided by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34) and these adjustments are
submitted to HPMS, available at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(c) Nonattainment and Maintenance areas data--The State DOTs shall
use the nonattainment and maintenance areas boundaries based on the
effective date of U.S. EPA designations in 40 CFR part 81 at the time
when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(d) National Highway System data.--The State DOTs shall document
and submit the extent of the NHS in accordance with the HPMS Field
Manual.
(e) Travel Time Data Set.--Travel time data needed to calculate the
measures in Subparts E, F, and G of this part will come from the
NPMRDS, unless the State DOT requests, and FHWA approves, the use of an
equivalent data source(s) that meets the requirements of this section.
In accordance with 490.103(g), the State DOT shall establish, in
coordination with applicable MPOs, a single travel time data set (i.e.,
NPMRDS or equivalent data set) that will be used to calculate the
annual metrics proposed in Subparts E, F, and G. The same data source
shall be used for each year in a performance period. A State DOT and
MPO(s) must use the same travel time data set for each reporting
segment for the purposes of calculating the metrics and measures. The
use of equivalent data source(s) shall comply with the following:
(1) State DOTs and MPOs shall use the same equivalent data
source(s) for a calendar year; and
(2) The State DOT shall request FHWA approve the use of equivalent
data source(s) no later than October 1st prior to the beginning of the
calendar year in which the data source would be used to calculate
metrics and FHWA would need to approve the use of that data source
prior to a State DOT and MPO(s)'s implementation and use of that data
source; and
(3) The State DOT shall make the equivalent data source(s)
available to FHWA, on request; and
(4) The State DOT shall maintain and use a documented data quality
plan to routinely check the quality and accuracy of data contained
within the equivalent data source(s); and
(5) The equivalent data source(s) shall:
(i) Be used by both the State DOT and all MPOs within the State for
all applicable travel time segments;
(ii) In combination with or in place of NPMRDS data, include:
(A) Contiguous segments that cover the full NHS, as defined in 23
U.S.C. 103, within the State and MPO boundary;
(B) Average travel times for at least the same number of 5 minute
intervals and the same locations that would be available in the NPMRDS;
(iii) Be populated with actual measured vehicle travel times and
shall not be populated with travel times derived from imputed (historic
travel times or other estimates) methods;
(iv) Include, for each segment at 5 minute intervals throughout a
full day (24 hours) for each day of the year, the average travel time,
recorded to the nearest second, representative of at least one of the
following:
(A) All traffic on each segment of the NHS;
(B) Freight vehicle traffic on each segment of the Interstate
System;
(v) Include, for each segment, a recording of the time and date of
each 5 minute travel time record;
(vi) Include the location (route, direction, State), length and
begin and end points of each segment; and
(vii) Be available within 60 days of measurement.
(f) State DOTs, in coordination with MPOs, shall define a single
set of reporting segments of the Interstate System and non-Interstate
NHS for the purpose of calculating the measures specified in Sec.
490.507, Sec. 490.607, and Sec. 490.707 in accordance with the
following:
(1) Reporting segments shall be comprised of one or more contiguous
Travel Time Segments of same travel direction;
(2) Reporting segments shall not exceed \1/2\ mile in length in
urbanized areas unless an individual Travel Time Segment is longer, and
10 miles in length in non-urbanized areas unless an individual Travel
Time Segment is longer; and
(3) All reporting segments collectively shall be contiguous and
cover the full extent of the directional mainline highways of the
Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS required for reporting the
measure.
(g) State DOTs shall submit their defined reporting segments to
FHWA no later than November 1st prior to the beginning of a calendar
year. If a State DOT is using an approved equivalent travel time data
source during the performance period, the State DOT shall resubmit a
new set of defined reporting segments that corresponds to the
equivalent travel time data source. The State DOT shall submit the
following to FHWA in HPMS:
(1) The Travel Time segment/s that make up each reporting segment;
and
(2) The route and length (to the nearest thousandth of a mile) of
each reporting segment; and
(3) The Desired Peak Period Travel Times (both morning and evening)
that will be used to calculate the Peak Hour Travel Time measures
identified in Sec. 490.507(b) for each reporting segment that is fully
included within urbanized areas with populations over one million.
(4) Documentation of the State DOT and applicable MPOs coordination
and agreement on the travel time data set, the defined reporting
segments, and the desired travel times submitted.
(5) If the defined reporting segments contain segments using
equivalent data set, in part or in whole, all reporting

[[Page 23898]]

segment shall be referenced by HPMS location referencing standards.

Sec. 490.105 Establishment of performance targets.

(a) In general. -- State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs)
shall establish performance targets for all measures specified in
paragraph (c) of this section for the respective target scope
identified in paragraph (d) with the requirements specified in
paragraph (e), and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) shall
establish performance targets for all measures specified in paragraph
(c) for respective target scope identified in paragraph (d) with the
requirements specified in paragraph (f).
(b) Highway Safety Improvement Program measures.--State DOTs and
MPOs shall establish performance targets for the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) measures in accordance with Sec. 490.209.
(c) Applicable measures.--State DOTs and MPOs that include, within
their respective geographic boundaries, any portion of the applicable
transportation network or area shall establish performance targets for
the performance measures identified in 23 CFR sections--
(1) 490.307(a)(1) and 490.307(a)(2) for the condition of pavements
on the Interstate System;
(2) 490.307(a)(3) and 490.307(a)(4) for the condition of pavements
on the National Highway System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate);
(3) 490.407(c)(1) and 490.407(c)(2) for the condition of bridges on
the NHS;
(4) 490.507(a)(1) and 490.507(a)(2) for the NHS travel time
reliability;
(5) 490.507(b)(1) and 490.507(b)(2) for the peak hour travel time;
(6) 490.607(a) and 490.607(b) for the freight movement on the
Interstate System;
(7) 490.707 for traffic congestion; and
(8) 490.807 for on-road mobile source emissions.
(d) Target scope.--Targets established by the State DOT and MPO
shall, regardless of ownership, represent the transportation network or
geographic area, including bridges that cross State borders, that are
applicable to the measures as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) State DOTs and MPOs shall establish Statewide and metropolitan
planning area wide targets, respectively, that represent the condition/
performance of the transportation network or geographic area that are
applicable to the measures, as specified in 23 CFR sections--
(i) 490.303 for the condition of pavements on the Interstate System
measures specified in Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and Sec. 490.307(a)(2);
(ii) 490.303 for the condition of pavements on the National Highway
System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate) measures specified in Sec.
490.307(a)(3) and Sec. 490.307(a)(4);
(iii) 490.403 for the condition of bridges on the NHS measures
specified in Sec. 490.407(c)(1) and Sec. 490.407(c)(2);
(iv) 490.503(a)(1) for NHS travel time reliability measures
specified in Sec. 490.507(a)(1) and Sec. 490.507(a)(2);
(v) 490.603 for the freight movement on the Interstate System
measures specified in Sec. 490.607(a) and Sec. 490.607(b); and
(vi) 490.803 for the on-road mobile source emissions measure
identified in Sec. 490.807.
(2) State DOTs and MPOs shall establish a single urbanized area
target that represents the performance of the transportation network in
each area applicable to the measures, as specified in 23 CFR sections--
(i) 490.503(a)(2) for the peak hour travel time measures identified
in Sec. 490.507(b)(1) and Sec. 490.507(b)(2); and
(ii) 490.703 for the traffic congestion measure identified in Sec.
490.707.
(3) For the purpose of target establishment in this section,
reporting targets and progress evaluation in Sec. 490.107 and
significant progress determination in Sec. 490.109, State DOTs shall
declare and describe the NHS limits and urbanized area boundaries
within the State boundary in the Baseline Performance Period Report
required by Sec. 490.107(b)(1). Any changes in NHS limits or urbanized
area boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for
until the following performance period.
(e) State DOTs shall establish targets for each of the performance
measures identified in paragraph (c) of this section for respective
target scope identified in paragraph (d) of this section as follows:
(1) Schedule.--State DOTs shall establish targets not later than 1
year of the effective date of this rule and for each performance period
thereafter, in a manner that allows for the time needed to meet the
requirements specified in this section and so that the final targets
are submitted to FHWA by the due date provided in Sec. 490.107(b).
(2) Coordination.--State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs
on the selection of targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent
practicable.
(3) Additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas.--In
addition to statewide targets, described in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, State DOTs may, as appropriate, for each statewide target
establish additional targets for portions of the State.
(i) A State DOT shall declare and describe in the Baseline
Performance Period Report required by Sec. 490.107(b)(1) the
boundaries used to establish each additional target. Any changes in
boundaries during a performance period would not be accounted for until
the following performance period.
(ii) State DOTs may select any number and combination of urbanized
area boundaries and may also select a non-urbanized area boundary for
the establishment of additional targets.
(iii) The boundaries used by the State DOT for additional targets
shall be contained within the geographic boundary of the State.
(iv) State DOTs shall evaluate separately the progress of each
additional target and report that progress as required under Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
(v) Additional targets for urbanized areas and the non-urbanized
area are not applicable to the peak hour travel time measures, traffic
congestion measures, and on-road mobile source emissions measures in
paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, respectively.
(4) Time horizon for targets.--State DOTs shall establish targets
for a performance period as follows:
(i) The performance period will begin on:
(A) January 1st of the year in which the Baseline Performance
Period Report is due to FHWA and will extend for a duration of 4 years
for the measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this section;
and
(B) October 1st of the year prior to which the Baseline Performance
Report is due to FHWA and will extend for a duration of 4 years for the
measure in paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
(ii) The midpoint of a performance period will occur 2 years after
the beginning of a performance period described in paragraph (e)(4)(i)
of this section.
(iii) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(7) and (e)(8)(vi) of
this section, State DOTs shall establish 2-year targets that reflect
the anticipated condition/performance level at the midpoint of each
performance period for the measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7)
of this section, and the anticipated cumulative emissions reduction to
be reported for the first 2 years of a performance period by applicable
criteria pollutant and precursor for the

[[Page 23899]]

measure in paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
(iv) State DOTs shall establish 4-year targets that reflect the
anticipated condition/performance level at the end of each performance
period for the measures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this
section, and the anticipated cumulative emissions reduction to be
reported for the entire performance period by applicable criteria
pollutant and precursor for the measure in paragraph (c)(8) of this
section.
(5) Reporting.--State DOTs shall report 2-year targets, 4-year
targets, the basis for each established target, progress made toward
the achievement of targets, and other requirements to FHWA in
accordance with Sec. 490.107, and the State DOTs shall provide
relevant MPO(s) targets to FHWA, upon request, each time the relevant
MPOs establish or adjust MPO targets, as described in paragraph (f) of
this section.
(6) Target adjustment.--State DOTs may adjust an established 4-year
target in the Mid Performance Period Progress Report, as described in
Sec. 490.107(b)(2). Any adjustments made to 4-year targets established
for the peak hour travel time measure specified in paragraph (c)(5) or
traffic congestion measure in paragraph (c)(7) of this section shall be
agreed upon and made collectively by all State DOTs and MPOs that
include any portion of the NHS in the respective urbanized area
applicable to the measure.
(7) Phase-in of new requirements for Interstate System pavement
condition measures and the non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability
measures.--The following requirements apply only to the first
performance period and to the measures in Sec. Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and
(2) and Sec. 490.507(a)(2):
(i) State DOTs shall establish their 4-year targets, required under
paragraph (4)(iv), and report these targets in their Baseline
Performance Period Report, required under Sec. Sec. 490.107(b)(1);
(ii) State DOTs shall not report 2-year targets, described in
paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section, and baseline condition/
performance in their Baseline Performance Period Report; and
(iii) State DOTs shall use the 2-year condition/performance in
their Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A) as the baseline condition/performance. State DOTs
may also adjust their 4-year targets, as appropriate.
(iv) State DOTs shall annually report metrics for all mainline
highways on the NHS throughout the performance period, as required in
Sec. 490.511(d).
(8) Urbanized area specific targets.--The following requirements
apply to establishing targets for the peak hour travel time measures
specified in paragraph (c)(5) and traffic congestion measure in
paragraph (c)(7) of this section, as their target scope provided in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
(i) State DOTs, with mainline highways on the Interstate System
that cross any part of an urbanized area with a population more than 1
million within its geographic State boundary, shall establish target
for the measure specified in Sec. 490.507(b)(1) for the urbanized
area. State DOTs, with mainline highways on the non-Interstate NHS that
cross any part of an urbanized area with a population more than 1
million within its geographic State boundary, shall establish target
for the measure specified in Sec. 490.507(b)(2) for the urbanized
area.
(ii) If any part of the urbanized area for either of the peak hour
travel time measures, provided for in paragraph (i) of this section,
contains any part of a nonattainment or maintenance area for any one of
the criteria pollutants, as specified in Sec. 490.703, then that State
DOT shall establish targets for the measure specified in Sec. 490.707.
(iii) If required to establish a target for a peak-hour travel time
measure, as described in paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this section and/or a
target for a traffic congestion measure, as described in paragraph
(e)(8)(ii), State DOTs shall comply with the following:
(A) For each urbanized area, only one 2-year target and one 4-year
target for the entire urbanized area shall be established regardless of
roadway ownership.
(B) For each urbanized area, all State DOTs and MPOs that contain,
within their respective boundaries, any portion of the NHS network in
that urbanized area shall agree on one 2-year and one 4-year target for
that urbanized area. The targets reported, in accordance with Sec.
490.105(e)(5) and Sec. 490.105(f)(7), by the State DOTs and MPOs for
that urbanized area shall be identical.
(C) State DOTs shall meet all reporting requirements in Sec.
490.107 for the entire performance period even if there is a change of
population, NHS designation, or nonattainment/maintenance area
designation during that performance period.
(D) The 1 million population threshold, in paragraph (e)(8)(i) of
this section, shall be determined based on the most recent U.S.
Decennial Census available at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(E) NHS designations, in paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and (ii) of this
section, shall be determined from the State DOT Baseline Performance
Period Report required in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E).
(F) The designation of nonattainment or maintenance areas, in
paragraph of (ii) of this section, shall be determined based on the
effective date of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's designation
under the NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(iv) If a State DOT does not meet the criteria specified in
paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this section for both peak-hour travel time
measures at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance Period
Report is due to FHWA, then that State DOT is not required to establish
targets for traffic congestion measure for that performance period.
(v) If a State DOT does not meet the criteria specified in
paragraph (ii) at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance
Period Report is due to FHWA, then that State DOT is not required to
establish targets for the traffic congestion measure for that
performance period.
(vi) The following requirements apply only to the first performance
period and the traffic congestion measure in Sec. 490.707:
(A) State DOTs shall establish their 4-year targets, required under
paragraph Sec. 490.105(e)(4)(iv), and report these targets in their
Baseline Performance Period Report, required under Sec. 490.107(b)(1);
(B) State DOTs shall not report 2-year targets, described in Sec.
490.105(e)(4)(ii) of this section, and baseline condition/performance
in their Baseline Performance Period Report; and
(C) State DOTs shall use the 2-year condition/performance in their
Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A) as the baseline condition/performance. The
established baseline condition/performance shall be collectively
developed and agreed upon with relevant MPOs.
(D) State DOTs may, as appropriate, adjust their 4-year target(s)
in their Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A). Adjusted 4-year target(s) shall be developed and
collectively agreed upon with relevant MPO(s), as described in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
(E) State DOTs shall annually report metrics for all mainline
highways on the NHS for all applicable urbanized area(s) throughout the
performance period, as required in Sec. 490.711(f).

[[Page 23900]]

(9) Targets for on-road mobile source emissions measure.--The
following requirements apply to establishing targets for the measures
specified in paragraph (c)(8) of this section:
(i) The State DOTs shall establish statewide targets for the on-
road mobile source emissions measure for all nonattainment and
maintenance areas for all applicable criteria pollutants and precursors
specified in Sec. 490.803.
(ii) For all nonattainment and maintenance areas within the State
geographic boundary, the State DOT shall establish separate statewide
targets for each of the applicable criteria pollutants and precursors.
(iii) The established targets, as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of
this section, shall reflect the anticipated cumulative emissions
reduction to be reported in the CMAQ Public Access System required in
Sec. 490.809(a).
(iv) In addition to the statewide targets in paragraph (e)(9)(i) of
this section, State DOTs may, as appropriate, establish additional
targets for any number and combination of nonattainment and maintenance
areas by applicable criteria pollutant within the geographic boundary
of the State. If a State DOT establishes additional targets for
nonattainment and maintenance areas, it shall report the targets in the
Baseline Performance Period Report required by Sec. 490.107(b)(1).
State DOTs shall evaluate separately the progress of each of these
additional targets and report that progress as required under Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(B) and Sec. 490.107(b)(3)(ii)(B).
(v) The designation of nonattainment or maintenance areas shall be
determined based on the effective date of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's designation under the NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when
the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(vi) The State DOT shall meet all reporting requirements in Sec.
490.107 for the entire performance period even if there is a change of
nonattainment or maintenance area designation status during that
performance period.
(vii) If a State geographic boundary does not contain any part of
nonattainment or maintenance areas for applicable criteria pollutants
and precursors at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance
Period Report is due to FHWA, then that State DOT is not required to
establish targets for on-road mobile source emissions measures for that
performance period.
(f) The MPOs shall establish targets for each of the performance
measures identified in paragraph (c) of this section for the respective
target scope identified in paragraph (d) of this section as follows:
(1) Schedule.--The MPOs shall establish targets no later than 180
days after the respective State DOT(s) establishes their targets, as
provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(i) The MPOs shall establish 4-year targets, described in paragraph
(e)(4)(iv) of this section, for all applicable measures, described in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4)(vi) of this section,
the MPOs shall establish 2-year targets, described in paragraph
(e)(4)(iii) of this section for the peak hour travel time, traffic
congestion and on-road source emissions measures, described in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section as their applicability criteria
described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(5)(iii) of this
section, respectively.
(iii) If an MPO does not meet the criteria described in paragraphs
(f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), or (f)(5)(iii) of this section, the MPO is not
required to establish 2-year target(s) for the corresponding
measure(s).
(2) Coordination.--The MPOs shall coordinate with relevant State
DOT(s) on the selection of targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent
practicable.
(3) Target establishment options.--For each performance measure
identified in paragraph (c) of this section, except the peak hour
travel time measures, the traffic congestion measure, and MPOs meeting
the criteria under paragraph (5)(iii) for on-road mobile source
emission measure, the MPOs shall establish a target by either:
(i) Agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute
toward the accomplishment of the relevant State DOT target for that
performance measure; or
(ii) Committing to a quantifiable target for that performance
measure for their metropolitan planning area.
(4) Urbanized area specific targets.--The following requirements
apply to establishing targets for the peak hour travel time measures
specified in paragraph (c)(5) and traffic congestion measure in
paragraph (c)(7) of this section, as their target scope provided in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
(i) MPOs shall establish targets for the measure specified in Sec.
490.507(b)(1) when mainline highways on the Interstate System within
their metropolitan planning area boundary cross any part of an
urbanized area with a population more than 1 million. MPOs shall
establish targets for the measure specified in Sec. 490.507(b)(2) when
mainline highways on the non-Interstate NHS within their metropolitan
planning area boundary cross any part of an urbanized area with a
population more than 1 million.
(ii) MPOs shall establish targets for the measure specified in
Sec. 490.707 when mainline highways on the NHS within their
metropolitan planning area boundary cross any part of an urbanized area
with a population more than 1 million, and that portion of their
metropolitan planning area boundary also contains any portion of a
nonattainment or maintenance area for any one of the criteria
pollutants, as specified in Sec. 490.703. If an MPO is not required to
establish a target for the measure specified in Sec. 490.707, but any
part of the urbanized area for either of the peak hour travel time
measures, provided for in paragraph (i) of this section, contains any
part of a nonattainment or maintenance area for any one of the criteria
pollutant, as specified in Sec. 490.703, then that MPO should
coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) and MPO(s) in the target
establishment process for the measure specified in Sec. 490.707.
(iii) If required to establish a target for a peak-hour travel time
measure, as described in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section and/or
traffic congestion measure, as described in paragraph (f)(4)(ii), MPOs
shall comply with the following:
(A) For each urbanized area, only one 2-year target and one 4-year
target for the entire urbanized area shall be established regardless of
roadway ownership.
(B) For each urbanized area, all State DOTs and MPOs that contain,
within their respective boundaries, any portion of the NHS network in
that urbanized area shall agree on one 2-year and one 4-year target for
that urbanized area. The targets reported, in accordance with Sec.
490.105(e)(5) and Sec. 490.105(f)(7), by the State DOTs and MPOs for
that urbanized area shall be identical.
(C) MPOs shall meet all reporting requirements in Sec. 490.107(c)
for the entire performance period even if there is a change of
population, NHS designation, or nonattainment/maintenance area
designation status during that performance period.
(D) The 1 million population threshold, in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of
this section, shall be determined based on the most recent U.S.
Decennial Census available at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(E) NHS designations, in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section, shall be

[[Page 23901]]

determined from the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report
required in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(E).
(F) The designation of nonattainment or maintenance areas, in
paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this section, shall be determined based on the
effective date of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's designation
under the NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(iv) If an MPO does not meet the criteria specified in paragraph
(f)(4)(i) of this section at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA, then that MPO is not required
to establish targets for the peak hour travel time measure for that
performance period.
(v) If an MPO does not meet the criteria specified in paragraph
(f)(4)(ii) of this section at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA, then that MPO is not required
to establish targets for the traffic congestion measure for that
performance period.
(vi) The following requirements apply only to the first performance
period and the traffic congestion measure in Sec. 490.707:
(A) The MPOs shall not report 2-year targets, described in
paragraph (f)(4)(iii)(A) of this section,
(B) The MPOs shall use the 2-year condition/performance in State
DOT Mid Performance Period Progress Report, described in Sec.
490.107(b)(2)(ii)(A) as baseline condition/performance. The established
baseline condition/performance shall be agreed upon and made
collectively with relevant State DOTs.
(C) The MPOs may, as appropriate, adjust their 4-year target(s).
Adjusted 4-year target(s) shall be collectively developed and agreed
upon with all relevant State DOT(s), as described in paragraph (f)(7)
of this section.
(5) Targets for on-road mobile source emissions measures.--The
following requirements apply to establishing targets for the measure in
paragraph (c)(8) of this section:
(i) The MPO shall establish targets for each of the applicable
criteria pollutants and precursors, specified in Sec. 490.803, for
which it is in nonattainment or maintenance, within its metropolitan
planning area boundary.
(ii) The established targets, as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of
this section, shall reflect the anticipated cumulative emissions
reduction to be reported in the CMAQ Public Access System required in
Sec. 490.809(a).
(iii) If any part of a designated nonattainment and maintenance
area within the metropolitan planning area overlaps the boundary of an
urbanized area with a population more than 1 million in population,
then that MPO shall establish both 2-year and 4-year targets for their
metropolitan planning area.
(iv) For the nonattainment and maintenance areas within the
metropolitan planning area that do not meet the criteria in paragraph
(f)(5)(iii) of this section, MPOs shall establish 4-year targets for
their metropolitan planning area, as described in paragraph (f)(3) of
this section.
(v) The designation of nonattainment or maintenance areas shall be
determined based on the effective date of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's designation under the NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when
the State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(vi) The MPO shall meet all reporting requirements in Sec.
490.107(c) for the entire performance period even if there is a change
of nonattainment or maintenance area designation status or population
during that performance period.
(vii) If a metropolitan planning area boundary does not contain any
part of nonattainment or maintenance areas for applicable criteria
pollutants and precursors at the time when the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report is due to FHWA, then that MPO is not require
to establish targets for on-road mobile source emissions measures for
that performance period.
(6) MPO response to State DOT target adjustment.--For the
established targets in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, if the State
DOT adjusts a 4-year target in the State DOT's Mid Performance Period
Progress Report and if, for that respective target, the MPO established
a target by supporting the State DOT target as allowed under paragraph
(f)(3)(i) of this section, then the MPO shall, within 180 days, report
to the State DOT whether they will either:
(i) Agree to plan a program of projects so that they contribute to
the adjusted State DOT target for that performance measure; or
(ii) Commit to a new quantifiable target for that performance
measure for its metropolitan planning area.
(7) Target adjustment.--If the MPO establishes its target by
committing to a quantifiable target, described in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)
of this section or establishes target(s) for on-road source emissions
measure required in paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this section, then the
MPOs may adjust its target(s) in a manner that is collectively
developed, documented, and mutually agreed upon by the State DOT and
MPO. Any adjustments made to 4-year targets, established for the peak
hour travel time measure or traffic congestion measure in paragraph
(f)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, shall be collectively developed and
agreed upon by all State DOTs and MPOs that include any portion of the
NHS in the respective urbanized area applicable to the measure.
(8) Reporting.--The MPOs shall report targets and progress toward
the achievement of their targets as specified in Sec. 490.107(c).
After the MPOs establish or adjust their targets, the relevant State
DOT(s) must be able to provide these targets to FHWA upon request.

Sec. 490.107 Reporting on performance targets.

(a) In general.--All State DOTs and MPOs shall report the
information specified in this section for the targets required in Sec.
490.105.
(1) All State DOTs and MPOs shall report in accordance with the
schedule and content requirements under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, respectively.
(2) For the measures identified in Sec. 490.207(a), all State DOTs
and MPO shall report on performance in accordance with Sec. 490.213.
(3) State DOTs shall report using an electronic template provided
by FHWA.
(4) Initial State Performance Report.--State DOTs shall submit an
Initial Performance Report to FHWA by October 1, 2016, that includes
the following information:
(i) The condition/performance of the NHS in the State for measures
where the State DOT is required to establish targets and where data is
available;
(ii) The effectiveness of the investment strategy document in the
State asset management plan for the National Highway System;
(iii) Progress toward targets the State DOT are to establish, which
may only be a description of how State DOTs are coordinating with
relevant MPOs and other agencies in target selection for the targets to
be reported in the first State Biennial Performance Report in 2018; and
(iv) The ways in which the State is addressing congestion at
freight bottlenecks, including those identified in the National Freight
Strategic Plan, within the State.
(5) State DOTs shall report initial 2-year and 4-year targets, as
described in Sec. 490.105(e)(4), to FHWA within 30 days of target
establishment by either amending the Initial State Performance Report
due in October 2016, or through the Baseline Performance Report for the

[[Page 23902]]

first performance period, as described in Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(i),
whichever comes first.
(b) State Biennial Performance Report.-- State DOTs shall report to
FHWA baseline condition/performance at the beginning of a performance
period and progress achievement at both the midpoint and end of a
performance period. State DOTs shall report at an ongoing 2-year
frequency as specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this
section.
(1) Baseline Performance Period Report.
(i) Schedule.--State DOTs shall submit a Baseline Performance
Period Report to FHWA by October 1 of the first year in a performance
period. State DOTs shall submit their first Baseline Performance Period
Report to FHWA by October 1, 2018, and subsequent Baseline Performance
Period Reports to FHWA by October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
(ii) Content.--The State DOT shall report the following information
in each Baseline Performance Period Report:
(A) Targets.--2-year and 4-year targets for the performance period,
as required in Sec. 490.105(e), and a discussion, to the maximum
extent practicable, of the basis for each established target;
(B) Baseline condition/performance.--Baseline condition/performance
derived from the latest data collected through the beginning date of
the performance period specified in Sec. 490.105(e)(4)(i) for each
target, required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section;
(C) Relationship with other performance expectations.--A
discussion, to the maximum extent practicable, on how the established
targets in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section support expectations
documented in longer range plans, such as the State asset management
plan required by 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and the long-range statewide
transportation plan provided in part 450 of this chapter;
(D) Urbanized area boundaries and population data for targets.--For
the purpose of determining target scope in Sec. 490.105(d),
determining IRI rating in Sec. 490.313(b)(1), and establishing
additional targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas in Sec.
490.105(e)(3), State DOTs shall document the boundary extent for all
applicable urbanized areas and the latest Decennial Census population
data, based on information in HPMS;
(E) NHS limits for targets.-- For the purpose of determining target
scope in Sec. 490.105(d), State DOTs shall document the extent of the
NHS, based on information in HPMS;
(F) Congestion at freight bottlenecks.--Discussion on the ways in
which the State DOT is addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks
within the State, including those identified in the National Freight
Strategic Plan, and any additional locations that the State DOT wishes
to include as identified through comprehensive freight improvement
efforts of Statewide Freight Planning or MPO freight plans; the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and Transportation
Improvement Program; regional or corridor level efforts; other related
planning efforts; and operational and capital activities targeted to
improve freight movement on the Interstate System;
(G) Nonattainment and maintenance area for targets.--Where
applicable, for the purpose of determining target scope in Sec.
490.105(d) and any additional targets under Sec. 490.105(e)(9)(iv),
State DOTs shall describe the boundaries of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's designated nonattainment and maintenance areas, as
described in Sec. 490.103(c) and Sec. 490.105(e)(9)(v):
(H) MPO CMAQ Performance Plan.--Where applicable, State DOTs shall
include as an attachment the MPO CMAQ Performance Plan, described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) Mid Performance Period Progress Report.
(i) Schedule.--State DOTs shall submit a Mid Performance Period
Progress Report to FHWA by October 1 of the third year in a performance
period. State DOTs shall submit their first Mid Performance Period
Progress Report to FHWA by October 1, 2020, and subsequent Mid
Performance Period Progress Reports to FHWA by October 1 every 4 years
thereafter.
(ii) Content.--The State DOT shall report the following information
in each Mid Performance Period Progress Report:
(A) 2-year condition/performance.--the actual condition/performance
derived from the latest data collected through the midpoint of the
performance period, specified in Sec. 490.105(e)(4), for each State
DOT reported target required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section;
(B) 2-year progress in achieving performance targets.--A discussion
of the State DOT's progress toward achieving each established 2-year
target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. The State DOT shall
compare the actual 2-year condition/performance in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, within the boundaries and limits
documented in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(D) and (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this
section, with the respective 2-year target and document in the
discussion any reasons for differences in the actual and target values;
(C) Investment strategy discussion.--A discussion on the
effectiveness of the investment strategies developed and documented in
the State asset management plan for the NHS required under 23 U.S.C.
119(e);
(D) Congestion at freight bottlenecks.--Discussion on progress of
the State DOT's efforts in addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks
within the State, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(F) of this
section;
(E) Target adjustment discussion.--When applicable, a State DOT may
submit an adjusted 4-year target to replace an established 4-year
target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. If the State DOT
adjusts its target, it shall include a discussion on the basis for the
adjustment and how the adjusted target supports expectations documented
in longer range plans, such as the State asset management plan and the
long-range statewide transportation plan. The State DOT may only adjust
a 4-year target at the midpoint and by reporting the change in the Mid
Performance Period Progress Report;
(F) 2-year significant progress discussion for the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) targets and the National Highway Freight
Program (NHFP) targets.--State DOTs shall discuss the progress they
have made toward the achievement of all 2-year targets established for
the NHPP measures in Sec. 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and NHFP
measures in 490.105(c)(6). This discussion should document a summary of
prior accomplishments and planned activities that will be conducted
during the remainder of the Performance Period to make significant
progress toward that achievement of 4-year targets for applicable
measures;
(G) Extenuating Circumstances discussion on 2-year Targets.--When
applicable, for 2-year targets for the NHPP or NHFP, a State DOT may
include a discussion on the extenuating circumstance(s), described in
Sec. 490.109(e)(5), beyond the State DOT's control that prevented the
State DOT from making 2-year significant progress toward achieving NHPP
or NHFP target(s) in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) of this section;
(H) Applicable Target Achievement Discussion.--If FHWA determines
that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward the
achievement of any NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial FHWA
determination, then the State DOT shall include a description of the

[[Page 23903]]

actions they will undertake to achieve those targets as required under
Sec. 490.109(f). If FHWA determines under Sec. 490.109(e) that the
State DOT has made significant progress for NHPP or NHFP targets, then
the State DOT does not need to include this description for those
targets; and
(I) MPO CMAQ Performance Plan.--Where applicable, State DOTs shall
include as an attachment the MPO CMAQ Performance Plan, described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3) Full Performance Period Progress Report.
(i) Schedule.--State DOTs shall submit a progress report on the
full performance period to FHWA by October 1 of the first year
following the reference performance period. State DOTs shall submit
their first Full Performance Period Progress Report to FHWA by October
1, 2022, and subsequent Full Performance Period Progress Reports to
FHWA by October 1 every 4 years thereafter.
(ii) Content.--The State DOT shall report the following information
for each Full Performance Period Progress Report:
(A) 4-year condition/performance.--The actual condition/performance
derived from the latest data collected through the end of the
Performance Period, specified in Sec. 490.105(e)(4), for each State
DOT reported target required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section;
(B) 4-year progress in achieving performance targets.--A discussion
of the State DOT's progress made toward achieving each established 4-
year target in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(E) of
this section, when applicable. The State DOT shall compare the actual
4-year condition/performance in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this
section, within the boundaries and limits documented in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section, with the respective 4-
year target and document in the discussion any reasons for differences
in the actual and target values;
(C) Investment strategy discussion.--A discussion on the
effectiveness of the investment strategies developed and documented in
the State asset management plan for the NHS required under 23 U.S.C.
119(e);
(D) Congestion at freight bottlenecks.--Discussion on progress of
the State DOT's efforts in addressing congestion at freight bottlenecks
within the State, as described in paragraph (1)(ii)(F) of this section;
(E) 4-year significant progress evaluation for applicable
targets.--State DOTs shall discuss the progress they have made toward
the achievement of all 4-year targets established for the NHPP measures
in Sec. 490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and NHFP measures in Sec.
490.105(c)(6). This discussion shall include a summary of
accomplishments achieved during the Performance Period to demonstrate
whether the State DOT has made significant progress toward achievement
of 4-year targets for those measures;
(F) Extenuating circumstances discussion on applicable targets.--
When applicable, a State DOT may include discussion on the extenuating
circumstance(s), described in Sec. 490.109(e)(5), beyond the State
DOT's control that prevented the State DOT from making a 4-year
significant progress toward achieving NHPP or NHFP targets, described
in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E) of this section;
(G) Applicable Target Achievement Discussion.--If FHWA determines
that a State DOT has not made significant progress toward the
achievement of any NHPP or NHFP targets in a biennial FHWA
determinations, then the State DOT shall include a description of the
actions they will undertake to achieve those targets as required under
Sec. 490.109(f). If FHWA determines in Sec. 490.109(e) that the State
DOT has made significant progress for NHPP or NHFP targets, then the
State DOT does not need to include this description for those targets;
and
(H) MPO CMAQ Performance Plan.--Where applicable, State DOTs shall
include as an attachment the MPO CMAQ Performance Plan, described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(c) MPO Report.--The MPOs shall establish targets in accordance
with Sec. 490.105 and report targets and progress toward the
achievement of their targets in a manner that is consistent with the
following:
(1) The MPOs shall report their established targets to their
respective State DOT in a manner that is documented and mutually agreed
upon by both parties.
(2) The MPOs shall report baseline condition/performance and
progress toward the achievement of their targets in the system
performance report in the metropolitan transportation plan in
accordance with Part 450 of this chapter.
(3) MPOs serving a TMA with a population over one million
representing nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, CO, or PM
NAAQS shall develop a CMAQ performance plan as required by 23 U.S.C.
149(l). The CMAQ performance plan is not required when the MPO does not
serve a TMA with a population over one million; the MPO is attainment
for ozone, CO, and PM NAAQS; or the MPO's nonattainment or maintenance
area for ozone, CO, or PM NAAQS is outside the urbanized area boundary
of the TMA with a population over one million.
(i) The CMAQ performance plan shall be submitted as a separate
section attached to the State Biennial Performance Reports, as required
under Sec. 490.107(b), and be updated biennially on the same schedule
as the State Biennial Performance Reports.
(ii) For traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions
measures in Subparts G and H, the CMAQ performance plan submitted with
the State DOT's Baseline Performance Period Report shall include:
(A) The 2-year and 4-year targets for the traffic congestion
measure, identical to the relevant State DOT(s) reported target under
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, for each applicable urbanized
area;
(B) The 2-year and 4-year targets for the on-road mobile source
emissions measure for the performance period;
(C) Baseline condition/performance for each MPO reported traffic
congestion target, identical to the relevant State DOT(s) reported
baseline condition/performance under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section;
(D) Baseline condition/performance derived from the latest
estimated cumulative emissions reductions from CMAQ projects for each
MPO reported on-road mobile source emissions target; and
(E) A description of projects identified for CMAQ funding and how
such projects will contribute to achieving the performance targets for
these measures.
(iii) For traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions
measures in Subparts G and H, the CMAQ performance plan submitted with
the State DOT's Mid Performance Period Progress Report shall include:
(A) 2-year condition/performance for the traffic congestion
measure, identical to the relevant State DOT(s) reported condition/
performance under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, for each
applicable urbanized area;
(B) 2-year condition/performance derived from the latest estimated
cumulative emissions reductions from CMAQ projects for each MPO
reported on-road mobile source emissions target;
(C) An assessment of the progress of the projects identified in the
CMAQ performance plan submitted with the Baseline Performance Period
Report toward achieving the 2-year targets for these measures;

[[Page 23904]]

(D) When applicable, an adjusted 4-year target to replace an
established 4-year target; and
(E) An update to the description of projects identified for CMAQ
funding and how those updates will contribute to achieving the 4-year
performance targets for these measures.
(iv) For traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions
measures in Subparts G and H, the CMAQ performance plan submitted with
the State DOT's Full Performance Period Progress Report shall include:
(A) 4-year condition/performance for the traffic congestion
measure, identical to the relevant State DOT(s) reported condition/
performance reported under paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, for
each applicable urbanized area;
(B) 4-year condition/performance derived from the latest estimated
cumulative emissions reductions from CMAQ projects for each MPO
reported on-road mobile source emissions target; and
(C) An assessment of the progress of the projects identified in
both paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(C) and (c)(3)(iii)(D) of this section toward
achieving the 4-year targets for these measures.

Sec. 490.109 Assessing significant progress toward achieving the
performance targets for the National Highway Performance Program and
the National Highway Freight Program.

(a) In general.--The FHWA will assess each of the State DOT targets
separately for the measures specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(1)through
(c)(5) and the NHFP measures specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(6) to
determine the significant progress made toward the achievement of those
targets.
(b) Frequency.--The FHWA will determine whether a State DOT has or
has not made significant progress toward the achievement of applicable
targets as described in paragraph (e) of this section at the midpoint
and the end of each performance period.
(c) Schedule.--The FHWA will determine significant progress toward
the achievement of a State DOT's NHPP and NHFP targets after the State
DOT submits the Mid Performance Period Progress Report for progress
toward the achievement of 2-year targets, and again after the State DOT
submits the Full Performance Period Progress Report for progress toward
the achievement of 4-year targets. The FHWA will notify State DOTs of
the outcome of the determination of the State DOT's ability to make
significant progress toward the achievement of its NHPP and NHFP
targets.
(d) Source of data/information.--
(1) The FHWA will use the following sources of information to
assess NHPP condition and performance progress:
(i) Data contained within the HPMS on June 15 of the year in which
the significant progress determination is made that represents
conditions from the prior year for targets established for Interstate
System pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec.
490.105(c)(1);
(ii) Data contained within the HPMS on August 15 of the year in
which the significant progress determination is made that represents
conditions from the prior year for targets established for non-
Interstate NHS pavement condition measures, as specified in Sec.
490.105(c)(2);
(iii) The most recently available data contained within the NBI as
of June 15 of the year in which the significant progress determination
is made for targets established for NHS bridge condition measures, as
specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(3);
(iv) The urbanized area boundary and NHS limit data in the HPMS as
documented in the Baseline Performance Period Report specified in Sec.
Sec. 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(D) and (E);
(v) Data contained within the HPMS on August 15 of the year in
which the significant progress determination is made that represents
performance from the prior year for targets established for the
Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS performance measures, as
specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(4) and (5); and
(vi) Population data as defined by the most recent U.S. Decennial
Census for urbanized areas available at the time when the State DOT
Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA.
(2) The FHWA will use the data contained within the HPMS on August
15 of the year in which the significant progress determination is made
that represents performance from the prior year for targets established
for NHFP measures, as specified in Sec. 490.105(c)(6), to assess NHFP
targets and performance progress.
(e) Significant progress determination for individual NHPP and NHFP
targets.
(1) In general.--The FHWA will biennially assess whether the State
DOT has achieved or made significant progress toward each target
established by the State DOT for the NHPP measures described in Sec.
490.105(c)(1) through (c)(5) and NHFP measures described in Sec.
490.105(c)(6). The FHWA will assess the significant progress of each
statewide target separately using the condition/performance data/
information sources described in paragraph (d) of this section. The
FHWA will not assess the progress achieved for any additional targets a
State DOT may establish under Sec. 490.105(e)(3).
(2) Significant progress toward individual NHPP and NHFP targets.--
The FHWA will determine that a State DOT has made significant progress
toward the achievement of each 2-year or 4-year applicable target if
either:
(i) The actual condition/performance level is better than the
baseline condition/performance reported in the State DOT Baseline
Performance Period Report; or
(ii) The actual condition/performance level is equal to or better
than the established target.
(3) Phase-in of new requirements.--The following requirements shall
only apply to the first performance period and only to the Interstate
System pavement condition targets and non-Interstate NHS travel time
reliability targets, described in Sec. 490.105(e)(7):
(i) At the midpoint of the first performance period, FHWA will not
make a determination of significant progress toward the achievement of
2-year targets for Interstate System pavement condition measures.
(ii) The FHWA will classify the assessment of progress toward the
achievement of targets in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section as
``progress not determined'' so that they will be excluded from the
requirement under paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(iii) FHWA will not make a determination of significant progress
toward the achievement of 2-year targets for non-Interstate NHS travel
time reliability measure.
(4) Insufficient data and/or information.--If a State DOT does not
provide sufficient data and/or information, required under paragraph
(d) of this section and Sec. 490.107, necessary for FHWA to make
significant progress determination for an NHPP or NHFP target, FHWA
will determine that the State DOT has not made significant progress
toward the achievement of the applicable target(s).
(5) Extenuating circumstances.--The FHWA will consider extenuating
circumstances documented by the State DOT in the assessment of progress
toward the achievement of NHPP and NHFP targets in the relevant State
Biennial Performance Report, provided in Sec. 490.107.
(i) The FHWA will classify the assessment of progress toward the
achievement of an individual 2-year or 4-year target as ``progress not
determined'' if the State DOT has provided an explanation of the
extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the State DOT that
prevented

[[Page 23905]]

it from making significant progress toward the achievement of a 2-year
or 4-year target and the State DOT has quantified the impacts on the
condition/performance that resulted from the circumstances, which are:
(A) Natural or man-made disasters that caused delay in NHPP or NHFP
project delivery, extenuating delay in data collection, and/or damage/
loss of data system;
(B) Sudden discontinuation of Federal government furnished data due
to natural and man-made disasters or lack of funding; and/or
(C) New law and/or regulation directing State DOTs to change metric
and/or measure calculation.
(ii) If the State DOT's explanation, described in paragraph
(e)(5)(i) of this section, is accepted by FHWA, FHWA will classify the
progress toward achieving the relevant target(s) as ``progress not
determined,'' and those targets will be excluded from the requirement
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(f) Performance achievement.--
(1) If FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant
progress toward the achieving of NHPP targets, then the State DOT shall
include as part of the next performance target report under section
150(e) [the Biennial Performance Report] a description of the actions
the State DOT will undertake to achieve the targets related to the
measure in which significant progress was not achieved as follows:
(i) If significant progress is not made for either target
established for the Interstate System pavement condition measures,
Sec. 490.307(a)(1) and Sec. 490.307(a)(2), then the State DOT shall
document the actions they will take to improve Interstate Pavement
conditions;
(ii) If significant progress is not made for either target
established for the Non-Interstate System pavement condition measures,
Sec. 490.307(a)(3) and Sec. 490.307(a)(4), then the State DOT shall
document the actions they will take to improve Non-Interstate Pavement
conditions;
(iii) If significant progress is not made for either target
established for the NHS bridge condition measures, Sec. 490.407(c)(1)
and Sec. 490.407(c)(2), then the State DOT shall document the actions
they will take to improve the NHS bridge conditions;
(iv) If significant progress is not made for either target
established for the NHS travel time reliability measures, Sec.
490.507(a)(1) and Sec. 490.407(a)(2), then the State DOT shall
document the actions they will take to achieve the NHS travel time
targets;
(v) If significant progress is not made for either urbanized area
specific target, described in Sec. 490.105(e)(8), established for the
peak hour travel measures, Sec. 490.507(b)(1) and Sec. 490.407(b)(2)
for an urbanized area, then the State DOT shall document the actions
they will take to achieve both the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS
peak hour travel time targets that urbanized area;
(2) If FHWA determines that a State DOT has not made significant
progress toward achieving the NHFP targets established for either of
the NHFP measures in Sec. 490.607(a) or Sec. 490.607(b), then the
State DOT shall include as part of the next performance target report
under section 150(e) [the Biennial Performance Report], a description
of the action the State will undertake to achieve the targets,
including--
(i) An identification of significant freight system trends, needs,
and issues within the State;
(ii) A description of the freight policies and strategies that will
guide the freight-related transportation investments of the State;
(iii) An inventory of freight bottlenecks within the State and a
description of the ways in which the State DOT is allocating national
highway freight program funds to improve those bottlenecks; and
(iv) A description of the actions the State DOT will undertake to
achieve the targets established for the Freight measures in Sec.
490.607(a) and Sec. 490.607(b).
(3) The State DOT should, within 6 months of the significant
progress determination, amend its Biennial Performance Report to
document the information specified in this paragraph to ensure actions
are being taken to achieve targets.

Sec. 490.111 Incorporation by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, FHWA must publish a document in the Federal
Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved
material is available for inspection at the Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information (202-366-4631) and
is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) The Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, www.fhwa.dot.gov.
(1) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, IBR
approved for Subparts A through C, and E through G.
(2) Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, Report No. FHWA-PD-96-001, December
1995 and errata, IBR approved for Subpart D.
(c) The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC
20001, (202) 624-5800, www.transportation.org.
(1) AASHTO Standard M328-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(2) AASHTO Standard R57-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling Systems, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(3) AASHTO Standard R55-10 (2013), Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surface, 2014,
34th/2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(4) AASHTO Standard PP67-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from
Collected Images Utilizing Automated Methods, 2014, 34th/2014 Edition,
AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(5) AASHTO Standard PP68-14, Standard Specification for Collecting
Images of Pavement Surfaces for Distress Detection, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(6) AASHTO Standard R48-10 (2003), Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Determining Rut Depth in Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.

[[Page 23906]]

(7) AASHTO Standard PP69-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross
Slope from Collected Transverse Profiles, 2013, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(8) AASHTO Standard PP70-14, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Collection the Transverse Pavement Profile, 2014, 34th/
2014 Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(9) AASHTO Standard R36-13, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
(10) AASHTO Standard R43-13, Standard Specification for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard
Practice for Quantifying Roughness of Pavement, 2014, 34th/2014
Edition, AASHTO, 1-56051-606-4, IBR approved for Subpart C.
0
3. Add a new Subpart E to read as follows:

Subpart E--National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Performance of the National Highway System

Sec.
490.501 Purpose.
490.503 Applicability.
490.505 Definitions.
490.507 National Performance Management Measures for System
Performance.
490.509 Data requirements.
490.511 Calculation of system performance metrics.
490.513 Calculation of system performance management measures.

Sec. 490.501 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(IV) and (c)(3)(A)(ii)(V) to establish
performance measures for State Departments of Transportation (State
DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to use to assess:
(a) Performance of the Interstate System; and
(b) Performance of the non-Interstate National Highway System
(NHS).

Sec. 490.503 Applicability.

(a) The performance measures are applicable to those portions of
the mainline highways on the NHS as provided below (and in more detail
in Sec. 490.507):
(1) The Reliability measures in Sec. 490.507(a) are applicable to
all directional mainline highways on the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS.
(2) The Peak Hour Travel Time measures in Sec. 490.507(b) are
applicable to all directional mainline highways on the Interstate
System and non-Interstate NHS that are within the boundary of urbanized
areas with a population over one million.

Sec. 490.505 Definitions.

All definitions in Sec. 490.101 apply to this subpart. Unless
otherwise specified in this subpart, the following definitions apply:
Desired Peak Period Travel Time is the desired travel time on a
specific reporting segment during the peak period that is defined in
coordination between the State DOT and MPO.
Level of Travel Time Reliability is a comparison, expressed as a
ratio, of the 80th percentile travel time of a reporting segment to the
``normal'' (50th percentile) travel time of a reporting segment
occurring throughout a full calendar year.
Normal Travel Time (or 50th percentile travel time) is the time of
travel to traverse the full extent of a reporting segment which is
greater than the time for 50 percent of the travel in a calendar year
to traverse the same reporting segment.
Peak Hour Travel Time is defined as the longest average annual
travel time on a segment of roadway during the peak period.
The Peak Period is defined as non-holiday weekdays from 6:00 to
7:00 a.m., 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., 8:00 to 9:00 a.m., 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.,
5:00 to 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio is defined as the ratio between the
Peak Hour Travel Time and the Desired Peak Period Travel Time for a
segment of roadway.
Travel Time Cumulative Probability Distribution means a
representation of all the travel times for a road segment during a
defined reporting period (such as annually) presented in a percentile
ranked order as provided in the Travel Time Data Set. The normal (50th
percentile) and 80th percentile travel times used to compute the Travel
Time Reliability measure may be identified by the travel time
cumulative probability distribution.

Sec. 490.507 National Performance Management Measures for System
Performance.

There are four performance measures to assess the performance of
the Interstate System and the performance of the non-Interstate NHS for
the purpose of carrying out the National Highway Performance Program.
(a) Two measures are used to assess Reliability. They are:
(1) Percent of the Interstate System providing for Reliable Travel
Times; and
(2) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS providing for Reliable Travel
Times.
(b) Two measures are used to assess Peak Hour Travel Time in
urbanized areas over 1,000,000 in population. They are:
(1) Percent of the Interstate System where Peak Hour Travel Times
meet expectations; and
(2) Percent of the non-Interstate NHS where Peak Hour Travel Times
meet expectations.

Sec. 490.509 Data requirements.

(a) Travel time data needed to calculate the measures in Sec.
490.507 shall come from the Travel Time Data Set, as specified in Sec.
490.103(e).
(1) State DOTs, in coordination with MPOs, shall define reporting
segments in accordance with Sec. 490.103(f) and submit the reporting
segments in accordance with Sec. 490.103(g). Reporting segments must
be contiguous so that they cover the full extent of the mainline
highways of the NHS in the State.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) State DOTs shall use posted speed limit data to calculate
travel times when data is not available in the Travel Time Data Set
(data not reported, or reported as ``0'' or null) as specified in Sec.
490.511(b)(1)(v).
(c) Populations of urbanized areas shall be as identified based on
the most recent U.S. Decennial Census available at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA. State DOTs
and MPOs shall use this population to identify areas that are
applicable to the Peak Hour Travel Time measure as specified in Sec.
490.503.

Sec. 490.511 Calculation of system performance metrics.

(a) Two performance metrics are required for the measures specified
in Sec. 490.507. These are:
(1) Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR)
(2) Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio (PHTTR)
(b) The State DOT shall calculate the LOTTR metrics for each NHS
reporting segment in accordance with the following:

[[Page 23907]]

(1) Data sets shall be created from the Travel Time Data Set to be
used to calculate the LOTTR metrics. This data set shall include, for
each reporting segment, a ranked list of average travel times for all
traffic (``all vehicles'' in NPMRDS nomenclature), to the nearest
second, for 5 minute periods of a population that:
(i) Includes travel times occurring between the hours of 6:00 a.m.
and 10:00 a.m. for every weekday (Monday-Friday) from January 1st
through December 31st of the same year;
(ii) Includes travel times occurring between the hours of 10:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for every weekday (Monday-Friday) from January 1st
through December 31st of the same year;
(iii) Includes travel times occurring between the hours of 4:00
p.m. and 8:00 p.m. for every weekday (Monday-Friday) from January 1st
through December 31st of the same year;
(iv) Includes travel times occurring between the hours of 6:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. for every weekend day (Saturday-Sunday) from January 1st
through December 31st of the same year; and
(v) Any travel time for Travel Time segments contained within a
reporting segment that are not reported, or reported as ``0'' or null
shall be replaced with the calculated travel time for that segment,
based on the segment length and posted speed limit (TT@PSL), rounded to
the nearest second.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.015

(2) The Normal Travel Time (50th percentile) shall be determined
from each data set defined under paragraph (b)(1) of this section as
the time in which 50 percent of the times in the data set are shorter
in duration and 50 percent are longer in duration. The 80th percentile
travel time shall be determined from the each data set defined under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section as the time in which 80 percent of the
times in the data set are shorter in duration and 20 percent are longer
in duration. Both the Normal and 80th percentile travel times can be
determined by plotting the data on a Travel Time Cumulative Probability
Distribution graph or using the percentile functions available in
spreadsheet and other analytical tools.
(3) Four LOTTR metrics shall be calculated for each reporting
segment; one for each data set defined under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section as the 80th percentile travel time divided by the 50th
percentile travel time and rounded to the nearest hundredth.
(c) The State DOT shall calculate the PHTTR metric for each
reporting segment that is included within an urbanized area with a
population over 1,000,000 in accordance with the following:
(1) The State DOT, in coordination with the relevant MPOs, shall
assign a ``Desired Peak Period Travel Time,'' based on their
operational policies for their NHS roadways, for each reporting segment
for the peak period, one each for the three morning hours and three
evening hours and report these to FHWA in accordance with Sec.
490.103(g)(3).
(2) All travel times equating to speeds less than 2 mph or greater
than 100 mph shall be removed from the calculation described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3) An average annual peak hour travel time for each reporting
segment shall be computed for each peak hour on non-Federal holiday
weekdays that includes travel times recorded from January 1st through
December 31st of a calendar year. Morning peak hours for this metric
shall include 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., and 8:00 to 9:00
a.m. and afternoon peak hours for this measure shall include 4:00 to
5:00 p.m., 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., and 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. The average travel
time for each peak hour shall be calculated for each reporting segment
to the nearest whole second as the sum of the 5-minute bin segment
average travel times for all traffic (``all vehicles'' in NPMRDS
nomenclature) occurring in the peak hour on non-Federal holiday
weekdays throughout the year divided by the total count of 5-minute
intervals where travel times were reported in the peak hour.
(4) The longest average annual peak hour travel time out of the 6
calculated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall be used to
calculate the PHTTR metric for the reporting segment.
(5) The PHTTR metric shall be calculated for each reporting segment
by using the longest average annual peak hour travel time as described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section divided by either the desired
morning or afternoon peak hour travel time defined in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section corresponding to the hour when the longest average
annual peak hour travel time occurred, and rounded to the nearest
hundredth.
(d) Starting in 2018 and annually thereafter, State DOTs shall
report the metrics, as defined in this section, in accordance with HPMS
Field Manual by June 15th of each year for the previous year's
measures. Specifically, the following metrics shall be reported for
each reporting segment:
(1) All reporting segments of the NPMRDS shall be referenced by
NPMRDS TMC. If a State DOT elects to use, in part or in whole, the
equivalent data set, all reporting segment shall be referenced by HPMS
location referencing standards:
(2) The Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) metric (to the
nearest hundredths) for each of the four time periods identified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section; the corresponding
80th percentile travel times (to the nearest second); and the
corresponding normal (50th percentile) travel times (to the nearest
second);
(3) Peak Hour Travel Time Ratio (PHTTR) (to the nearest hundredth);
peak hour travel time (to the nearest second); and the hour (6 a.m., 7
a.m., 8 a.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., or 6 p.m.) where the peak travel time
occurred.

Sec. 490.513 Calculation of system performance measures.

(a) The performance measures in Sec. 490.507 shall be calculated
in accordance with this section and used by State DOTs and MPOs to
carry out the Interstate System and non-Interstate NHS performance-
related requirements of part 490, and by FHWA to make the significant
progress determinations specified in Sec. 490.109.
(b) The performance measure for Interstate System Travel Time
Reliability specified in Sec. 490.507(a)(1) shall be computed to the
nearest tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.016

Where,

R: Total number of Interstate System reporting segments that are
exhibiting an LOTTR below 1.50 during all of the time periods
identified in 490.511(b)(1)(i) through (iv);

[[Page 23908]]

i: Interstate System reporting segment;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of
Interstate System reporting segment ``i;''
T: Total number of Interstate System reporting segments.

(c) The performance measure for non-Interstate NHS Travel Time
Reliability specified in Sec. 490.507(a)(2) shall be computed to the
nearest tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.017

Where,

R: Total number of non-Interstate NHS reporting segments that are
exhibiting an LOTTR below 1.50 during all of the time periods
identified in Sec. 490.511(b)(1)(i) through (iv);
i: Non-Interstate NHS reporting segment;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of non-
Interstate NHS reporting segment ``i;''
T: Total number of non-Interstate NHS reporting segments

(d) The performance measure for Interstate System Peak Hour Travel
Time specified in Sec. 490.507(b)(1) shall be computed to the nearest
tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.018

Where,

R: Total number of Interstate System reporting segments that are
exhibiting a PHTTR below 1.50;
i: Interstate System reporting segment in an urbanized area with a
population over one million;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of
Interstate System reporting segment ``i'';
T: Total number of Interstate System reporting segments in an
urbanized area with a population over one million.

(e) The performance measure for non-Interstate NHS Peak Hour Travel
Time specified in Sec. 490.507(b)(2) shall be computed to the nearest
tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.019

Where,

R: Total number of non-Interstate NHS reporting segments that are
exhibiting a PHTTR below 1.50;
i: Non-Interstate NHS reporting segment in an urbanized area with a
population over one million;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of non-
Interstate NHS reporting segment ``i'';
T: Total number of non-Interstate NHS reporting segments in an
urbanized area with a population over one million.

0
4. Add Subpart F to read as follows:

Subpart F--National Performance Management Measures to Assess
Freight Movement on the Interstate System

Sec.
490.601 Purpose.
490.603 Applicability.
490.605 Definitions.
490.607 National performance management measures to assess freight
movement on the Interstate System.
490.609 Data requirements.
490.611 Calculation of freight movement metrics.
490.613 Calculation of freight movement measures.

Sec. 490.601 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(6) to establish performance measures for State
Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) and the Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) to use to assess the national freight
movement on the Interstate System.

Sec. 490.603 Applicability.

The performance measures to assess the national freight movement
are applicable to the Interstate System.

Sec. 490.605 Definitions.

The definitions in Sec. 490.101 apply to this subpart.

Sec. 490.607 National performance management measures to assess
freight movement on the Interstate System.

There are two performance measures to assess freight movement on
the Interstate System. They are:
(a) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage providing for Reliable
Truck Travel Times; and
(b) Percent of the Interstate System Mileage Uncongested.

Sec. 490.609 Data requirements.

(a) Travel time data needed to calculate the measures in Sec.
490.607 shall come from the Travel Time Data Set, as specified in Sec.
490.103(e).
(b) State DOTs, in agreement with MPOs, shall define reporting
segments in accordance with Sec. 490.103(f) and submit the reporting
segments in accordance with Sec. 490.103(g). Reporting segments must
be contiguous so that they cover the full extent of the directional
mainline highways of the Interstate in the State.
(c) When truck travel times are not available in the Travel Time
Data Set (data not reported, or reported as ``0'' or null) as specified
in Sec. 490.611(b)(1)(ii) for a given 5 minute interval State DOTs
shall replace the missing travel time as follows:
(1) Replace the missing value with an observed travel time that
represents all traffic on the roadway during the same 5 minute interval
(``all vehicles'' in NPMRDS nomenclature) provided this travel time is
associated with travel speeds that are less than the posted speed
limit; or
(2) Replace the missing value with the travel time that would have
occurred while traveling at the posted speed limit.

Sec. 490.611 Calculation of freight movement metrics.

(a) Two performance metrics are required for the measures specified
in Sec. 490.607. These are:
(1) Truck Travel Time Reliability.
(2) Average Truck Speed.
(b) The State DOT shall calculate the Truck Travel Time Reliability
metric for each Interstate System reporting segment in accordance with
the following:
(1) A truck travel time data set shall be created from the Travel
Time Data Set to be used to calculate the Truck Travel Time Reliability
metric. This data set shall include, for each reporting segment, a
ranked list of average truck travel times, to the nearest second, for 5
minute periods of a 24 hour period for an entire calendar year that:
(i) Includes truck travel times occurring for all hours of every
day and for every 24-hour period from January 1st through December 31st
of the same year; and
(ii) Any truck travel times for Travel Time Segments contained
within a reporting segment that are not reported, or reported as ``0''
or null shall be replaced with an observed travel time that represents
all traffic on the roadway during the same 5 minute interval (``all
vehicles'' in NPMRDS nomenclature) provided this travel time is
associated with travel speeds that are less than the posted speed
limit. In all other cases the truck travel time shall be replaced with
a calculated truck travel time for that segment, based on the segment
length and posted speed limit (TTT@PSL), rounded to the nearest second.

[[Page 23909]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.020

(2) The Normal Truck Travel Time (50th percentile) shall be
determined from the truck travel time data set defined under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section as the time in which 50 percent of the times in
the data set are shorter in duration and 50 percent are longer in
duration. The 95th percentile truck travel time shall be determined
from the truck travel time data set defined under paragraph (b)(1) of
this section as the time in which 95 percent of the times in the data
set are shorter in duration. Both the Normal and 95th percentile truck
travel times can be determined by plotting the data on a Travel Time
Cumulative Probability Distribution graph or using the percentile
functions available in spreadsheet and other analytical tools.
(3) The Truck Travel Time Reliability metric shall be calculated
for each Interstate System reporting segment as the 95th percentile
truck travel time divided by the Normal Truck Travel Time (50th
percentile truck travel time), rounded to the nearest hundredth.
(c) The State DOT shall calculate the Average Truck Speed metric
for each Interstate System reporting segment, in accordance with the
following:
(1) Any truck travel times for the travel time segments contained
within a reporting segment that are not reported, or reported as ``0''
or null shall be replaced with an observed travel time that represents
all traffic on the roadway during the same 5 minute interval (``all
vehicles'' in NPMRDS nomenclature) provided this travel time is
associated with travel speeds that are less than the posted speed
limit. In all other cases the truck travel time shall be with the truck
travel time, to the nearest second, at posted speed limit (TTT@PSL) for
that segment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.021

(2) The Average Truck Speed shall be calculated for each reporting
segment as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.022

Where,

b = a 5-minute time interval of a travel time reporting segment
``s;''
s = a travel time reporting segment;
T = total number of time intervals in everyday in a full calendar
year;
Segment Length ( s ) = length of reporting segment ``s,'' to the
nearest one thousandth of a mile;
Truck Travel Timeb = travel time of trucks, for time interval ``b''
in the Travel Time Data Set or TTL@PSL for the reporting segment s
described in paragraph (1), to the nearest second;
Average Truck Speed ( s ) = average annual speed of trucks
travelling through the reporting segment ``s,'' to the nearest
hundredth mile per hour.

(d) Starting in 2018 and annually thereafter, State DOTs shall
report the metrics, as defined in this section, in accordance with HPMS
Field Manual by June 15th of each year for the previous year's
measures. Specifically, the following metrics shall be reported for
each reporting segment:
(1) All reporting segments of the NPMRDS shall be referenced by
NPMRDS TMC. If a State DOT elects to use, in part or in whole, the
equivalent data set, all reporting segment shall be referenced by HPMS
location referencing standards:
(2) Truck Travel Time Reliability metric (to the nearest
hundredth), including the 95th percentile truck travel time (to the
nearest second) and normal (50th percentile) truck travel time (to the
nearest second);
(3) Average Truck Speed metric (to the nearest hundredth mile per
hour).

Sec. 490.613 Calculation of freight movement measures.

(a) The performance measures in Sec. 490.607 shall be calculated
in accordance with this section and used by State DOTs and MPOs to
carry out the Freight Movement on the Interstate System related
requirements of part 490, and by FHWA to report on performance of the
Interstate System.
(b) The performance measure for the Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage providing for Reliable Truck Travel Times specified in
Sec. 490.607(a) shall be computed to the nearest tenth of a percent as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.023

Where,

a: An Interstate System reporting segment exhibiting Reliable Truck
Travel Times. Reliable Truck Travel Times for a reporting segment is
where calculated value of metric for the reporting segment, in Sec.
490.611(b)(3), is below 1.50;
SLa: Segment length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of
Interstate System reporting segment ``a;''
R: A total number of Interstate System reporting segments that are
exhibiting Reliable Truck Travel Times (R [isin] T);
i: An Interstate System reporting segment;
SLi: Segment length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of
Interstate System reporting segment ``i;'' and
T: A total number of Interstate System reporting segments.

(c) The performance measure for the Percent of the Interstate
System Mileage Uncongested as specified in Sec. 490.607(b) shall be
computed to the nearest tenth of a percent as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.024

Where,

g: An uncongested Interstate System reporting segment. An
uncongested reporting segment is where calculated

[[Page 23910]]

Average Truck Speed for the reporting segment, in Sec.
490.611(c)(2), is greater than 50.00 mph;
SLg: Segment length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of
Interstate System reporting segment ``g;''
U: A total number of uncongested Interstate System reporting
segments ();
i: An Interstate System reporting segment;
SLi: Length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of
Interstate System reporting segment ``i;'' and
T: Total number of Interstate System reporting segments.

0
5. Add Subpart G to read as follows:

Subpart G--National Performance Management Measure for Assessing
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--
Traffic Congestion

Sec.
490.701 Purpose.
490.703 Applicability.
490.705 Definitions.
490.707 National performance management measure for traffic
congestion.
490.709 Data requirements.
490.711 Calculation of congestion metric.
490.713 Calculation of congestion measure.

Sec. 490.701 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(5)(A) to establish performance measures for State
Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) and the Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) to use in assessing traffic congestion.

Sec. 490.703 Applicability.

The performance measure is applicable to all of the National
Highway System in urbanized areas with a population over one million
that are, in all or part, designated as nonattainment or maintenance
areas for ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Sec. 490.705 Definitions.

All definitions in Sec. 490.101 apply to this subpart. Unless
otherwise specified, the following definitions apply in this subpart:
Excessive delay means the extra amount of time spent in congested
conditions defined by speed thresholds that are lower than a normal
delay threshold. For the purposes of this rule, the speed threshold is
35 miles per hour (mph) on Interstates (Functional Class 1) and other
freeways and expressways (Functional Class 2) and 15 mph on other
principal arterials (Functional Class 3) and other roads with lower
functional classifications that are included in the NHS, as defined by
FHWA: HPMS Functional Classifications.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and
Procedures: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 490.707 National performance management measure for traffic
congestion.

The performance measure to assess traffic congestion for the
purpose of carrying out the CMAQ program, is Annual Hours of Excessive
Delay Per Capita.

Sec. 490.709 Data requirements.

(a) Travel time data needed to calculate the measure in Sec.
490.707 shall come from the Travel Time Data Set, as specified in Sec.
490.103(e).
(b) State DOTs, in coordination with MPOs, shall define reporting
segments in accordance with Sec. 490.103(f) and submit the reporting
segments in accordance with Sec. 490.103(g). Reporting segments must
be contiguous so that they cover the full extent of the directional
mainline highways of the NHS in the urbanized area(s).
(c) State DOTs shall develop hourly traffic volume data for each
reporting segment as follows:
(1) State DOTs shall measure or estimate hourly traffic volumes for
each day of the reporting year by using either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or
(ii) of this section.
(i) State DOTs may use hourly traffic volume counts collected by
continuous count stations and apply them to multiple reporting
segments, or
(ii) State DOTs may use Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
reported to the HPMS to estimate hourly traffic volumes when no hourly
volume counts exist. In these cases the AADT data used should be the
most recently available, but no more than two years older than the
reporting period (i.e., if reporting for calendar year 2018, AADT
should be from 2016 or 2017) and should be split to represent the
appropriate direction of travel of the reporting segment.
(2) State DOTs shall assign hourly traffic volumes to each
reporting segment by hour (e.g., between 8:00 a.m. and 8:59 a.m.;
between 9:00 a.m. and 9:59, a.m.).
(3) State DOTs shall report the methodology they use to develop
hourly traffic volume estimates to FHWA no later than 60 days prior to
the submittal of the first Baseline Performance Period Report.
(4) If a State DOT elects to change the methodology it reported
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, then the State DOT shall submit
the changed methodology no later than 60 days prior to the submittal of
next State Biennial Performance Report required in Sec. 490.107(b).
(d) Populations of urbanized areas shall be as identified based on
the most recent U.S. Decennial Census available at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA. This
population shall be used for the duration of the performance period to
calculate the performance measure as specified in Sec. 490.713.
(e) Nonattainment and maintenance areas shall be identified based
on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's designation of the area
under the NAAQS at the time when the State DOT Baseline Performance
Period Report is due to FHWA. These designations shall be used for the
duration of the performance period.

Sec. 490.711 Calculation of congestion metric.

(a) The performance metric required to calculate the measure
specified in Sec. 490.707 is Total Excessive Delay (vehicle-hours).
The following paragraphs explain how to calculate this metric.
(b) State DOTs shall use the following data to calculate the Total
Excessive Delay (vehicle-hours) metric:
(1) Travel times of all traffic (``all vehicles'' in NPMRDS
nomenclature) during each five minute interval for all applicable
reporting segments in the Travel Time Data Set occurring for all hours
of every day and for every 24-hour period from January 1st through
December 31st of the same year;
(2) The length of each applicable reporting segment, reported as
required under Sec. 490.709(b); and
(3) Hourly volume estimation for all days and for all reporting
segments where excessive delay is measured, as specified in Sec.
490.709(c).
(c) The State DOT shall calculate the ``excessive delay threshold
travel time'' for all applicable travel time segments as follows:

[[Page 23911]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.025

Where:

Excessive Delay Treshold Travel Time(s) = The time of travel, to the
nearest whole second, to traverse the Travel Time Segment at which
any longer measured travel times would result in excessive delay for
the travel time segment ``s;''
Travel Time Segment Length(s) = Total length of travel time segment
to the nearest thousandth of a mile for travel time reporting
segment ``s;'' and
Threshold Speed(s) = The speed of travel at which any slower
measured speeds would result in excessive delay for travel time
reporting segment ``s.''

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.026

(d) State DOTs shall determine the ``excessive delay'' for each
five minute bin of each reporting segment for every hour and every day
in a calendar year as follows:
(1) The travel time segment delay (RSD) shall be calculated to the
nearest whole second as follow:

RSD(s)b = Travel Time(s)b-Excessive Delay Treshold Travel Time(s)

and

RSD(s)b <= 300 seconds

Where:

RSD(s)b = travel time segment delay, calculated to the nearest whole
second, for a five minute bin ``b'' of travel time reporting segment
``s'' for in a day in a calendar year. RSD(s)b not to exceed 300
seconds;
Travel Time(s)b = a measured travel time, to the nearest second, for
5-minute time bin ``b'' recorded for travel time reporting segment
``s;''
Excessive Delay Threshold Travel Time(s) = The maximum amount of
time, to the nearest second, for a vehicle to traverse through
travel time segment ``s'' before excessive delay would occur, as
specified in Sec. 490.711(c);
b = a five minute bin of a travel time reporting segment ``s;'' and
s = a travel time reporting segment.

(2) Excessive delay, the additional amount of time to traverse a
travel time segment in a five minute bin as compared to the time needed
to traverse the travel time segment when traveling at the excessive
delay travel speed threshold, shall be calculated to the nearest
thousandths of an hour as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.027

Where:

Excessive delay(s)b = Excessive delay, calculated to the nearest
thousandths of an hour, for five minute bin ``b'' of travel time
reporting segment ``s;''
RSD(s)b = the calculated travel time reporting segment delay for
five minute bin ``b'' of a travel time reporting segment ``s,'' as
described in paragraph (1) of this section;
b = a five minute bin of a travel time reporting segment ``s;'' and
s = a travel time reporting segment.

(e) State DOTs shall use the hourly traffic volumes as described in
Sec. 490.709(c) to calculate the Total Excessive Delay (vehicles-
hours) metric for each reporting segment as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.028

Where:

Total Excessive Delay (in vehicle-hours) = the sum of the excessive
delay, to the nearest thousandths, for all traffic traveling through
single travel time reporting

[[Page 23912]]

segment on NHS within an urbanized area, specified in Sec. 490.703,
accumulated over the full reporting year;
s = a travel time reporting segment;
d = a day of the reporting year;
TD = total number of days in the reporting year;
h = single hour interval of the day where the first hour interval is
12:00 a.m. to 12:59 a.m.;
TH = total number of hour intervals in day ``h;''
b = 5-minute bin for hour interval ``h;''
TB = total number of 5-minute bins where travel times are recorded
in the travel time data set for hour interval ``h;''
Excessive Delay(s)b,h,d = calculated excessive travel time, in
hundredths of an hour, for 5 minute bin (b), hour interval (h), day
(d), and travel time segment (s), as described in paragraph d(2) of
this section; and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.029

interval ``h'' and day ``d'' that corresponds to 5-minute bin ``b''
and travel time reporting segment ``s'' divided by 12. For example,
the 9:05 a.m. to 9:10 a.m. minute bin would be assigned one twelfth
of the hourly traffic volume for the 9:00 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. hour on
the roadway in which travel time segment is included.

(f) Starting in 2018 and annually thereafter, State DOTs shall
report Total Excessive Delay (vehicle-hours) metric (to the nearest one
hundredth hour) in accordance with HPMS Field Manual by June 15th of
each year for the previous year's measures. The Total Excessive Delay
(vehicle-hours) metric shall be reported for each reporting segment.
All reporting segments of the NPMRDS shall be referenced by NPMRDS TMC.
If a State DOT elects to use, in part or in whole, the equivalent data
set, all reporting segment shall be referenced by HPMS location
referencing standards.

Sec. 490.713 Calculation of congestion measure.

(a) The performance measure in Sec. 490.707 shall be computed in
accordance with this section and shall be used by State DOTs and MPOs
to carry out CMAQ Traffic Congestion performance-related requirements
of part 490.
(b) The performance measure for CMAQ Traffic Congestion specified
in Sec. 490.707, Annual Hours of Excessive Delay Per Capita, shall be
computed to the nearest hundredth, and by summing the ``Total Excessive
Delay (vehicle-hours)'' metrics of all reporting segments in each of
the urbanized area, specified in Sec. 490.703, and dividing it by the
population of the urbanized area to produce the measure. The equation
for calculating the measure is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.030

Where:

Annual Hours of Excessive Delay per Capita = the cumulative hours of
excessive delay, to the nearest tenth, experienced by all traffic
traveling through all reporting segments in the applicable urbanized
area for the full reporting calendar year.
s = travel time reporting segment within an urbanized area,
specified in Sec. 490.703;
T = total number of travel time reporting segments in the applicable
urbanized area;
Total Excessive Delay(s) = total hours of excessive delay in Sec.
490.711(e) for all traffic traveling through travel time reporting
segment ``s'' during the reporting year (as defined in Sec.
490.711(f));
Total Population = the total population in the applicable urbanized
area as reported by the most recent U.S. Decennial Census.

(c) Calculation for the measure, described in this section, and
target establishment for the measure shall be phased-in under the
requirements in Sec. Sec. 490.105(e)(8)(vi) and 490.105(f)(4)(vi).
0
8. Add Subpart H to read as follows:

Subpart H--National Performance Management Measures to Assess the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--On-Road
Mobile Source Emissions

Sec.
490.801 Purpose.
490.803 Applicability.
490.805 Definitions.
490.807 National performance management measure for assessing on-
road mobile source emissions for the purposes of the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
490.809 Data requirements.
490.811 Calculation of emissions metric.
490.813 Calculation of emissions measure.

Sec. 490.801 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(5)(B) to establish performance measures for State
Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) and the Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) to use in assessing on-road mobile source
emissions.

Sec. 490.803 Applicability.

(a) The on-road mobile source emissions performance measure is
applicable to 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 (O3), carbon monoxide
(CO), or particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
(b) This performance measure does not apply to States and MPOs that
do not contain any portions of nonattainment or maintenance areas for
the criteria pollutants identified in paragraph (a) of this section.

Sec. 490.805 Definitions.

All definitions in Sec. 490.101 apply to this subpart. Unless
otherwise specified in this part, the following definitions apply in
this part:
Donut areas mean geographic areas outside a metropolitan planning
area boundary, but inside the boundary of a nonattainment or
maintenance area that contains a part of any metropolitan area(s).
These areas are not isolated

[[Page 23913]]

rural nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas mean areas that
do not contain or are not part of any metropolitan planning area as
designated under the transportation planning regulations. Isolated
rural areas do not have federally required metropolitan transportation
plans or Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) and do not have
projects that are part of the emissions analysis of any MPO's
metropolitan transportation plan or TIP. Projects in such areas are
instead included in statewide transportation improvement programs.
These areas are not donut areas.
On-road mobile source means, within this rulemaking, emissions
created by all projects and sources financed with funds from the 23
U.S.C. 149 CMAQ program.

Sec. 490.807 National performance management measure for assessing
on-road mobile source emissions for the purposes of the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.

The performance measure for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ
Program and for State DOTs to use to assess on-road mobile source
emissions is, ``Total Emissions Reduction'', which is the 2-year and 4-
year cumulative reported emission reductions, for all projects funded
by CMAQ funds, of each criteria pollutant and applicable precursors
(PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC, and NOX) under
the CMAQ program for which the area is designated nonattainment or
maintenance.

Sec. 490.809 Data requirements.

(a) The data needed to calculate the Total Emission Reduction
measure shall come from the CMAQ Public Access System and includes:
(1) The applicable nonattainment or maintenance area;
(2) The applicable MPO; and
(3) The emissions reduction estimated for each CMAQ funded project
for each of the applicable criteria pollutants and their precursors for
which the area is nonattainment or maintenance.
(b) The State DOT shall:
(1) Enter project information into the CMAQ project tracking system
for each CMAQ project funded in the previous fiscal year by March 1st
of the following fiscal year; and
(2) Extract the data necessary to calculate the on-road mobile
source emissions measures as it appears in the CMAQ Public Access
System on July 1st for projects obligated in the prior fiscal year.
(c) Nonattainment and maintenance areas shall be identified based
on the effective date of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
designations under the NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81 at the time when the
State DOT Baseline Performance Period Report is due to FHWA. These
designations shall be used for the duration of the performance period.

Sec. 490.811 Calculation of emissions metric.

(a) The metric to calculate the Total Emission Reductions measure
is the conversion of Emission Reductions from kg/day to short tons per
year.
(b) The Annual Tons of Emission Reductions that are predicted for
each applicable project reported to the CMAQ Public Access System for
each criteria pollutant or precursor for one year shall be defined as
follows:

Annual Tons of Emission Reductions(p)i = Reductions(p)i x 0.4026

Where:

p = criteria pollutant or precursor: PM2.5,
PM10,, CO, VOC, or NOX;
i = a project that is obligated for CMAQ funding for the first time;
Reductions/p/ = estimated daily emissions reductions for a criteria
pollutant or a precursor in a Federal fiscal year for which the
project is obligated for CMAQ funding for the first time. This is
reported in kg/day, in the first year the project is operational, to
the nearest one thousandths; and
Annual Tons of Emission Reductons(p)i = total annual short tons, to
the nearest one thousandths, of reduced emissions for a criteria
pollutant or an applicable precursor ``p'' in the in the first year
the project is obligated.

Sec. 490.813 Calculation of emissions measure.

(a) The Total Emission Reductions performance measure specified in
Sec. 490.807 shall be calculated in accordance with this section and
used by State DOTs and MPOs to carry out CMAQ On-Road Mobile Source
Emissions performance-related requirements of part 490.
(b) The Total Emission Reductions for each of the criteria
pollutant or applicable precursor for all projects reported to the CMAQ
Public Access System shall be calculated to the nearest one
thousandths, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AP16.031

Where:

i = applicable projects reported in the CMAQ Public Access System
for the first 2 Federal fiscal years of a performance period and for
the entire performance period, as described in in Sec.
490.105(e)(4)(i)(B);
p = criteria pollutant or applicable precursor: PM2.5,
PM10, CO, VOC, or NOX;
Annual Tons of Emission Reductons(p)i = specified metric in Sec.
490.811(b);
T = total number of applicable projects reported to the CMAQ Public
Access System for the first 2 Federal fiscal years of a performance
period and for the entire performance period, as described in Sec.
490.105(e)(4)(i)(B); and
Total Emission Reductions(p) = cumulative reductions in emissions
over 2 and 4 Federal fiscal years, total annual short tons, to the
nearest one thousandths, of reduced emissions for criteria pollutant
or precursor ``p''.

[FR Doc. 2016-08014 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Dates		Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2016. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Contact		For technical information: Francine Shaw Whitson, Office of Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028; for legal information: Anne Christenson, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0740, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FR Citation		81 FR 23806
RIN Number		2125-AF54
CFR Associated		Bridges; Highway Safety; Highways and Roads; Incorporation by Reference and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

81 FR 23806 - 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Highway Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 78 (April 22, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration