[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31212-31216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. 96-047-NO1]
Study of State Costs and Benefits Associated With Repeal of the
National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL)
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice invites comments, suggestions and recommendations
from State highway and traffic safety officials, highway safety
organizations, researchers, and others with an interest in the
potential relationship between increases in the speed limit and
increases in motor vehicle fatalities and injuries. Specifically, in
those States that have raised their speed limits beyond that permitted
by the former NMSL, this notice solicits the participation and
cooperation of the respective State highway safety officials in the
preparation of the study of costs and benefits associated with the
repeal of the NMSL, pursuant to Section 347 of the National Highway
System Designation Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are due no later than August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should refer to the docket number of this
notice and should be submitted to: Docket Section, NHTSA, Room 5109,
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Docket
hours are 9:30 am to 4:00 pm EST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA, Delmas Johnson, National
Center for Statistics and Analysis, Telephone 202/366-5382, Fax 202/
366-7078, Internet address is djohnson@nhtsa.dot.gov. In FHWA, Suzanne
Stack, Office of Highway Safety, Telephone 202/366-2620, Fax 202/366-
2249, Internet address is sjstack@intergate.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Speeding (exceeding the posted speed limit
or driving too fast for conditions) is one of the most prevalent
factors contributing to motor vehicle crashes, particularly fatal
crashes. In calendar year 1994, speeding was a factor in 30 percent of
all fatal crashes, and NHTSA estimates that 12,480 lives were lost in
speed-related crashes. NHTSA estimates that an additional 23,000
persons sustained critical injuries, 60,000 sustained moderate
injuries, and 500,000 sustained minor injuries, for a total of an
estimated 583,000 persons injured in speed-related crashes in 1994.
NHTSA estimates the 1994 costs of speed-related crashes to be more than
$23 billion.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Traffic Safety Facts 1994: Speed, U.S. Department of
Transportation, NHTSA, National Center for Statistics and Analysis,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL), enacted during the Arab
oil embargo of 1973 to conserve fuel, was set at 55 miles per hour
(MPH). By March 1974, all States were in compliance with the NMSL. In
addition to conserving fuel, the annual traffic fatality toll declined
from 54,052 in 1973 to 45,196 in 1974, a drop of over 16%. As a result
of the enormous safety benefits in the form of the reduction in traffic
fatalities, the Congress passed Public Law (Pub. L.) 93-643, making the
NMSL permanent. Public Law 93-643 also required every State to certify
that the NMSL was being enforced.
In 1978, the Congress enacted the Surface Transportation Assistance
Act (STAA), Pub. L. 95-599. The STAA required the States to submit data
on the percentage of motor vehicles exceeding 55 MPH on public highways
with a 55 MPH posted speed limit.
Following the enactment of the NMSL, numerous studies of the
benefits and costs of the legislation were conducted. A joint NHTSA/
FHWA task force, charged with determining the safety benefits of the
NMSL, conducted one of these studies. The NHTSA/FHWA task force
concluded that while the ``* * * determination of a precise, accurate
estimate of lives saved by the NMSL * * * is problematic, there were
20,000 to 30,000 lives saved by the NMSL during the period 1974-1978.''
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Life-Saving Benefits of the 55 MPH NMSL: Report of the
NHTSA/FHWA Task Force, U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS
805-559, October 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The STAA of 1982 required that a study of the ``benefits, both
human and economic'' of the NMSL, with ``particular attention to
savings to the taxpayers * * *'' be conducted by the National Academy
of Sciences' Transportation Research Board (TRB). In 1984, TRB
published its special report, 55: A Decade of Experience.3 The TRB
study, conducted by a 19 member committee composed of experts from a
wide range of disciplines needed to evaluate the costs and benefits of
the NMSL, represents one of the most thorough and extensive
examinations of this important safety issue. Although the TRB committee
recognized the inherent difficulties associated with attempts to
accurately estimate the safety, economic, and energy benefits of the
NMSL, the study concluded that annually 3,000 to 5,000 fewer traffic
fatalities, a savings of $2 billion in fuel costs, a savings of $65
million in taxpayer costs were the result of the NMSL, along with an
increase of 1 billion hours in travel time. The TRB study also
recognized several unresolved issues, including: the impact of
noncompliance; the containment of higher speeds, if permitted, on a
limited subset of roads; and whether the control of the speed limit is
a state or federal responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 55: A Decade of Experience, TRB Special Report 204, National
Research Council, Washington DC, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1987, the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act granted the states the authority to raise the speed
limit, not to exceed 65 MPH, on portions of the rural Interstate
system. Thirty-eight states raised speed limits on rural Interstates to
65 MPH in 1987, and two additional states adopted the 65 MPH speed
limit on rural Interstates in 1988, bringing approximately 90 percent
of the 34,000 rural Interstate mileage to 65 MPH. Congress asked for an
evaluation of the effects of the 65 MPH speed limit on rural Interstate
traffic fatalities for the
[[Page 31213]]
period 1987 through 1989. NHTSA published the results of this
evaluation in several reports to Congress, the last of which was
published in 1992,4 estimating the 1990 fatality toll on rural
Interstates in the 38 states with 65 MPH limits to be ``30 percent
greater than might have been expected'' or an increase of about 500
fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Effects of the 65 MPH Speed Limit through 1990: A Report to
Congress, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Washington, DC,
May 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway System (NHS)
Designation Act
The National Highway System Designation Act (hereinafter referred
to as ``the NHS Act'') of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59) was signed into law on
November 28, 1995. The NHS Act, among other things, established the
National Highway System and eliminated the Federal mandate for the
NMSL. In addition, Section 347 of the NHS Act required the Secretary of
Transportation to study the impact of states' actions to raise speed
limits above 55/65 MPH:
Not later than September 30, 1997, the Secretary, in cooperation
with any State which raises any speed limit in such State to a level
above the level permitted under section 154 of title 23, United
States Code, as such section was in effect on September 15, 1995,
shall prepare and submit to Congress a study of--
(1) The costs to such State of deaths and injuries resulting
from motor vehicle crashes; and
(2) The benefits associated with the repeal of the national
maximum speed limit.
Rep. James L. Oberstar, in remarks on his amendment which led to
the requirement contained in Pub. L. 104-59, elaborated on the issues
that the study (hereinafter referred to as the ``NHS Act study'')
should address--
To provide meaningful, useful information, the report should
include information on the costs before the State changes its safety
laws, and after. It would thus be my intent that the Secretary's
report, due September 30, 1997, include information on the costs of
motor vehicle crashes in the year before changes go into effect; and
again a year later.
The report should include, at a minimum, the costs of acute,
rehabilitative and long-term medical care, sources of reimbursement
and the extent to which these sources of reimbursement and the
extent to which these sources cover actual costs, and the costs to
all levels of government, to employers, and others.
All States are not alike. Each State will want to know its own
data, so that it can determine whether its problems are coming from
alcohol-related or speed-related causes, from not wearing seatbelts
and helmets, or other causes, and perhaps adjust its laws
accordingly.
The report should therefore also include additional factors such
as whether excess speed or alcohol were involved in the accident,
whether seat belts and motorcycle helmets were used by those
involved in the crash, and any other factors the Secretary may wish
to add or State to know.
NHTSA and FHWA (hereinafter referred to as ``the agencies'')
propose a strategy for meeting the legislative requirements, as stated
in Section 347 of the Act, in this notice. The proposed strategy is
intended to address the complexities of determining the costs and
benefits of increased speed limits, while meeting the Congressional
deadline of September 30, 1997. A major aspect of the proposed strategy
is an emphasis on cooperation between the agencies and the States that
have increased their speed limits, as stated in the legislation, for
preparation of the study. It is important that the States participate
in the NHS study process, as determining the impact of increased speed
limits in a particular State will necessitate that an analysis of
state- specific data be conducted. In addition, the proposed strategy
uses an approach similar to that used in the extensive study conducted
by TRB, in order to capitalize on the thorough work done by the TRB
committee to examine costs and benefits resulting from decreasing the
speed limit.
Data Needs
The agencies have identified several major categories of data
needed, as a minimum, to conduct the NHS Act study. These data are
critical to studying, to a reasonable degree, the issues related to
determining the costs and benefits of increasing speed limits. The
following table presents the minimum data requirements for addressing
key components of estimating the safety impact of increasing speed
limits. It will be important to collect the data described in the
following table for a minimum time period of one year before the speed
limit change vs. one year after the speed limit change, if at all
possible.
Minimum Data Requirements for Conducting NHS Act Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose Data description Performing organization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background......................... Effective Dates of Change States.
in Limits, Roadway Types,
New Limit(s), Types of
Vehicles Covered.
Determining the Impact of Increased Fatalities--Fatal Accident States--state impacts.
Speed Limits on Traffic Fatalities. Reporting System (FARS). NHTSA--national impacts.
Determining the Impact of Increased Injury Crashes and Injured States.
Speed Limits on Injuries. Persons--by road, vehicle
types, by speed limit,
alcohol involvement,
helmet use.
Determining the Impact of Increased Crashes of All Severities-- States.
Speed Limits on Crashes. by road, vehicle types, by
speed limit, alcohol
involvement, helmet use.
Estimating Benefits................ Reduced Travel Time-- States.
Commercial & Public
Transportation.
Estimating Costs................... Economic Cost of Crashes-- States--state impacts.
Before Vs. After Speed NHTSA--national impacts.
Limit Changes, Medical
Costs of Crash-Involved
Persons.
Determining Exposure............... Vehicle Miles Traveled and States/FHWA.
Speed Distribution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies request comments from the States and other interested
highway safety officials on the proposed data shown above.
Specifically, the agencies request comments regarding data availability
specific to relevant time periods, data accuracy, suggestions for
additional data not mentioned above, and any problems inherent in
collecting and/or reporting these data.
Proposed NHS Study Outline
The agencies propose the following outline for the NHS study
content. The proposed outline presents a structure for addressing the
entire range of issues identified in Section 347 of the Act. The
[[Page 31214]]
outline is an adaptation of the structure of the TRB special report,
55: A Decade of Experience. While the data described in the table shown
in the previous section, Data Needs, represents the minimum data
requirement for conducting the study, the following outline presents an
approach for a thorough treatment of the entire range of issues
associated with estimating costs and benefits of increased speed
limits. The agencies recognize that data may not be available for all
of these areas, but in the interest of completeness and to closely
follow the TRB report's content, these areas are included. In some
instances, collection of specific data may not be possible. However,
estimates may be available from past relationships and/or research, or
applying some type of multiplicative factors derived from other data
sources.
Draft Outline for NHS Study
I. Introduction
A. Scope of the study/legislative language
B. Legislative history of NMSL and requirements
C. Summary of previous experiences
1. Safety
2. Economic
II. Effects on Travel and Vehicle Speeds
A. The highway system: mileage, travel and safety
B. Amount of travel affected
C. Speed and travel changes across highway systems
D. Adequacy of speed data for addressing issues
III. Impacts of Increased Speed Limits
A. Travel Time (Personal, work, etc.)
B. Required Monitoring & Compliance
C. Fuel Consumption
D. Highway Safety (Fatalities, Injuries, Property Damage, etc.)
IV. Economic Impacts of Increased Speed Limits
A. Value of the Effects on Travel Time
B. Required Monitoring & Compliance Certification Costs
C. Costs Associated with Fuel Consumption
D. Motor Vehicle Crash Costs (Medical Care, Lost Productivity,
Property Damage, etc.
V. Summary and Conclusions
The material outlined above poses a number of challenges to
assessing the impacts of raised speed limits. First and foremost is the
collection of appropriate data to address the safety and economic
impacts. The crash data collection should be straightforward, although
the timing and availability of a sufficient amount of data to meet the
report's current deadline may prove to be one of the biggest
challenges. Another challenge will be in the area of analyzing the data
to provide estimates of effect.
The TRB's report, 55: A Decade of Experience, is essentially a
review of the existing literature on these subjects, supplemented by
what appears to be some new analysis at the national level, based on
existing studies. The report contains hundreds of references of papers
reviewed for consideration in their report. A copy of the TRB report
has been placed in the docket.5 The report describes methods used
to estimate various components such as taxpayer costs and benefits,
energy savings, and travel time. In many cases, external information
was used (such as the Nationwide Personal Transportation Study) to
estimate, on a national level, the amount of travel accounted for by
work-related trips, and their average trip length. In some instances,
changes proportional to the changes in crashes, injuries and fatalities
were assumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Interested parties may request a copy by contacting the
TRB, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated earlier, one of the objectives of the current report is
to study the effect of raised speed limits on, ``* * * the costs of
acute, rehabilitative and long-term medical care, sources of
reimbursement and the extent to which these sources of reimbursement
cover actual costs, and the costs to all levels of government, to
employers, and others.'' This level of detail generally has been
unavailable to the traffic safety community, with the possible
exception of special, small-scale studies. However, NHTSA recently
completed a project, Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Study (CODES), that
consisted of grants to seven states. The CODES study employed methods
whereby statewide data from police crash reports, emergency medical
services, hospital emergency departments, hospital discharge files,
claims and other sources were linked so that those people injured in
motor vehicle crashes could be followed through the health care system.
A copy of the Report to Congress (DOT-HS-808-347, February 1996) and
the CODES Technical Report (DOT-HS-808-338, January 1996) have been
placed in the docket. Based upon the CODES experience, NHTSA continues
to encourage states to link these data as a resource for identifying
and quantifying traffic safety problems within states, and for
evaluating the health-care consequences of various traffic safety
policy decisions. In the absence of such linked databases within the
states, other approaches to estimating the economic effects on the
health-care system will need to be employed.
Lastly, NHTSA's last Report to Congress on the Effects of the 65
mph Speed Limit Through 1990 (DOT-HS-807-840, June 1992) has been
placed in the docket. This report illustrates the type of analysis of
crash data that can be performed for estimating the effect of speed
limit changes. In this report, a time series regression model was used
to estimate the data, using annual data from 1975 through 1986 as the
baseline period, and 1987 through 1990 as the 65 mph period. Fatalities
on rural interstate highways in the 38 states that increased their
speed limits in 1987 were modeled as a function of fatalities on all
other roads in these 38 states, and a dummy (0,1) variable representing
the absence/presence of the 65 mph speed limit. This approach resulted
in a model that fit the data well (i.e., 88 percent of the variation
explained). In general, a longer time frame permits more stable
estimates than simply comparing the year before vs. the year after, and
thus, would be preferable for the current report.
Based on the above outline, the proposed NHS study would attempt to
address a wide range of issues on the benefits and costs of the
increased speed limits, using a compilation of State-specific data and
national estimates. Chapter I--Introduction, would present an overview
of the historical background on establishing speed limits, specifically
the NMSL, and a brief summary of findings from study of the costs and
benefits of the NMSL, similar to the material presented earlier in this
notice in Supplementary Information. Chapter II--Effects on Travel and
Vehicle Speeds, would rely heavily on information received from the
States with increased speed limits, augmented by anecdotal information
on the national impact. Chapter III--Impacts of Increased Speed Limits,
would present a detailed assessment, using data collected and analyzed
by individual States, on the estimated savings in reduced travel time
and monitoring/compliance efforts and the estimated impact in terms of
increases in motor vehicle crashes, fatalities, injuries, traffic
congestion, and fuel consumption. As such, Chapter III encompasses a
critical portion of the proposed study and will necessitate that the
agencies rely upon the individual States for detailed assessments of
the impact of increased speed limits on crashes, particularly injury
and property damage crashes, traffic congestion, reduced air quality,
and increased fuel consumption. It will be extremely important to
receive State information on these key areas for compiling the NHS
study, as the agencies will not have direct access to State specific
data
[[Page 31215]]
on these issues. Chapter IV--Economic Impacts of Increased Speed
Limits--would present an examination of the actual costs saved in
reduction in travel time and the costs incurred as a result of
increases in the crash spectrum, fatalities, injuries, and property
damage, in detail. As a result, Chapter IV extends the analysis of the
data presented in Chapter III by supplementing estimates of increases
in motor vehicle crashes, with the economic cost of various components
of crash costs. The agencies plan to rely heavily on the State analyses
for compiling Chapter IV and intends to augment, as necessary, the
State findings with economic cost estimates and a presentation of
national estimates of economic costs, as well. Most importantly, the
agencies will have to rely exclusively on State specific information
for compiling one particular component of Chapter IV, Section D--Impact
on public revenues. Chapter V--Summary and Conclusions--would present a
summary of the State and National findings from previous chapters,
along with observations regarding difficulties encountered by the
States and the agencies in the analytical process and general
conclusions.
Proposed Schedule
The agencies propose the following schedule for completing the NHS
study in order to meet the deadline established by Section 347 of the
Act.
Proposed Schedule for Conducting NHS Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Milestone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 5, 1996......................... End 45-day comment period w/comments due to NHTSA/FHWA.
September 27, 1996..................... Publish final notice on NHS Act study methodology and summary of
comments received.
October 1996 thru April 1997........... Provide technical support to the States on an ``as requested'' basis
for preparing State-specific studies of the costs/benefits of
increased speed limits.
May 30, 1997........................... States' individual studies on costs/benefits of increased speed limits
are due to NHTSA/FHWA.
June 30, 1997.......................... NHTSA/FHWA complete draft NHS Act study report including consolidation
of individual State studies.
July 1997.............................. Draft NHS study circulated for review within DOT and to participating
States.
August 1997............................ Final NHS study completed and reviewed/approved by DOT.
September 30, 1997..................... NHS study sent to Congress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues Regarding Data Availability, Proposed NHS Act Study Outline, and
Schedule
The agencies recognize that the proposed NHS study outline, while
comprehensive in addressing the various aspects of determining the
benefits and costs of increased speed limits, may present difficulties,
based on the timing of the schedule, particularly in terms of data
availability. Data availability is a key concern for completing the
proposed study at the Federal and State levels. For example, while
NHTSA maintains data on traffic fatalities and fatal crashes for the
nation in the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), FARS data for
1996 will be available for analysis in June 1997, three months from the
legislative due date for the NHS Act study. Additionally, 1996 data on
vehicle miles traveled, a critical measure of exposure needed for
fatality and injury rate calculations, will be not available to FHWA
until September 1997, at the same time the NHS Act study is due to
Congress. As a result, the agencies solicit comments on these proposed
requirements, and are particularly interested in answers to the
following questions:
1. In the States with increased speed limits, are there data
available in the State to address the specific areas outlined in the
proposed NHS Act study, especially Chapter III--Impacts of Increased
Speed Limits and Chapter IV--Economic Impacts of Increased Speed
Limits? If so, to what extent?
2. Do plans currently exist within the State(s) to study the
impact--safety and economic--of increased speed limits? If yes, does
the State anticipate meeting the proposed schedule for forwarding
results of the study to DOT? If there are no current plans to study the
impact of increased speed limits, does the State intend to participate
in the proposed study effort by contributing information regarding the
changes in the State related to increased speed limits?
3. Is the proposed approach reasonable? Are there issues that
should be studied that are not included in the proposed outline? Are
there issues included in the proposed outline that should be omitted or
revised?
4. Is the proposed schedule reasonable? If not, what can reasonably
be accomplished within the proposed time frame? What is an alternative
schedule that would be more reasonable?
5. Does the proposed schedule provide for a sufficient period of
time to evaluate the effects of increased speed limits? For example,
the study is tasked with comparing one year before vs. one year after
the change in speed limits. States are asked to comment on the timing
of their implemented or planned changes in the State speed limit as it
relates to the NHS Act study objectives.
The agencies invite public comment on the above questions and other
areas of this notice. Interested individuals, highway safety
organizations, State highway officials, and others are encouraged to
submit comments on these and any related issues. It is requested (but
not required) that ten (10) copies of each comment be submitted.
Written comments to the docket must be received on or before August 5,
1996. In order to expedite review of this notice and the submission of
comments, copies of this notice are being sent simultaneously with
issuance to members of the National Association of Governors' Highway
Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) and the American Association of State
Highway Safety and Traffic Officials (AASHTO). Comments should not
exceed fifteen (15) pages in length. Necessary attachments may be
appended to the submissions without regard to the fifteen page limit.
This limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their
primary concerns in a concise manner. All comments received before the
close of business on the comment closing date listed above will be
considered and will be available for examination in the docket room at
the above address both before and after that date. To the extent
possible, comments filed after the closing date will be considered.
Those commenters wishing to be notified upon receipt of their comments
by the Docket should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope with
their comments. Upon receipt of the comments, the Docket supervisor
will return the postcard by U.S. Mail.
Issued: June 14, 1996.
[[Page 31216]]
Signed:
Donald C. Bischoff,
Acting Executive Director, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
Anthony R. Kane,
Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-15599 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
