DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [4910-22-P]

Federal Highway Administration 

[Docket No. FHWA-2021-0011] 

Improving Road Safety for All Users on Federal-Aid Projects

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: Our priority at DOT and FHWA is to make our transportation system safe 

for all people. Right now, we face a crisis on our roadways. In 2021, an estimated 

42,915 people across the Nation – 117 people per day – lost their lives in motor vehicle 

crashes. This represents the highest number of fatalities since 2005. Every transportation 

project, whether the project’s purpose is safety-related or not, is an opportunity to 

improve safety. The street network including on-road and off-road facilities should 

provide safe, equitable, accessible, and comfortable transportation for everyone. Part of 

the work that DOT proposes to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our 

Nation’s highways, roads, and streets is to develop a National Roadway Safety Strategy 

(NRSS). The NRSS, adopts the Safe System Approach principles to guide our safety 

actions, and identifies critical and significant actions DOT will take now in pursuit of five 

core objectives: Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles, Safer Speeds, and Post-Crash 

Care. As part of the actions to address the national crisis of fatalities and serious injuries 

on our roadways, FHWA requests comments on what strategies, programmatic 

adjustments or regulatory changes could help improve safety on U.S. highways. 

Requests for comments include but are not limited to whether changes to the FHWA 
2 

Design Standards regulation or other FHWA regulations are needed to facilitate the 

development of Complete Streets and Complete Networks that serve all users, how the 

safety performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed, how funding could be 

optimized for safety improvements, and how to include measures and collection of more 

data that can improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please 

submit comments by only one of the following means: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, 

DC 20590-0001; 

• Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue S.E., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329; 

• Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number or the 

Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comments. All comments received will be posted without change to 

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice, 

contact: Phillip Bobitz, FHWA Office of Safety Technologies, (717) 221-4574, 
3 

Phillip.Bobitz@dot.gov, or Elizabeth Hilton, Office of Preconstruction, Construction and 

Pavements, (202) 924-8618, Elizabeth.Hilton@dot.gov; for legal questions contact Lev 

Gabrilovich, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-3813, 

Lev.Gabrilovich@dot.gov. FHWA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., 

Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing

A copy of this notice, all comments received on this notice, and all background 

material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket number 

listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are also available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document also may be 

downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register’s Website at 

www.FederalRegister.gov and the Government Publishing Office’s Website at 

www.GovInfo.gov. 

Background 

In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people across the Nation – 117 people per day – lost 

their lives in motor vehicle crashes. This represents the highest number of fatalities since 

2005 and is a result of increases on rural Interstates and urban roads, among younger and 

older drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and in other crash types.1 In January, DOT 

1 Newly Released Estimates Show Traffic Fatalities Reached a 16-year High in 2021 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-trafficfatalities#:~:text=The%20National%20Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,the%2038%2C824%20fatalities%2

0in%202020.
4 

unveiled the NRSS.

2

 The NRSS commits DOT and FHWA to respond to the current 

crisis in traffic fatalities by “taking substantial, comprehensive action to significantly

reduce serious and fatal injuries on the Nation’s roadways,” in pursuit of the goal of 

achieving zero highway deaths. To achieve this goal, the Department has adopted the 

“Safe System Approach,” which acknowledges both human mistakes and human 

vulnerability, and designs a redundant system to protect everyone by preventing crashes 

and ensuring that if they do occur, they do not result in serious injury or death. The 

Department will use a five-pronged model to address safety: safer people, safer roads, 

safer vehicles, safer speeds and post-crash care. Under the NRSS, FHWA committed to 

launching a Complete Streets initiative, to implement policies that prioritize the safety of 

all users in transportation network planning, design, construction, and operations. An 

important area of focus for the NRSS is the disproportionate, adverse safety impacts that 

affect certain groups on our roadways. Fatalities due to traffic crashes disproportionately 

affect communities of color, people living in rural areas, people with disabilities, and 

older adults. For example, fatalities among Black people increased by 23 percent 

between 2019 and 2020 compared to an overall increase of 7.2 percent.3

 People who are 

American Indian and Alaska Native have roadway fatality rates more than double the 

national rate on a per population basis.4 Although men consistently represent more than 

70 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes, when comparable crashes are analyzed 

and risk taking differences are accounted for, studies have shown that motor vehicle 

2 DOT National Roadway Safety Strategy, January 2022, available at 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf 3 NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020, 

June 2021, available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118. 4 NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2018 Final File; Population – Census Bureau
5 

fatality risk is, on average, 17 percent higher for a female than for a male of the same 

age.5 The disproportionate safety impacts are especially true in underserved 

communities, where people face heightened exposure to risk. The 40 percent of counties 

with the highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced a fatality rate 35 percent higher than 

the national average on a per population basis.6 

Traffic deaths among people who walk or bike have also become a higher 

proportion of fatalities. This highlights the need for a Safe System approach that not only 

addresses safety on roadways but also the multimodal aspect of how our infrastructure 

works. More information can be found about the specific commitments of the NRSS at 

https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS. 

Funding 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Nov. 15, 2021), provides a historic opportunity for FHWA 

to work closely with State, local and Tribal partners to put increased transportation 

funding to work incorporating safety for all users into every federally-funded road 

project. FHWA encourages States and other funding recipients to prioritize safety in all 

Federal highway investments and in all appropriate projects, using relevant Federal-aid 

funding. This notice and the actions that follow are part of the solution in achieving the 

vision of zero fatalities. 

5 NHTSA Injury Vulnerability and Effectiveness of Occupant Protection Technologies for Older Occupants 

and Women, May 2013, available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811766 6 FARS 2019 data publication, 1st release; Poverty rates and Population data by County, U.S. Census. The 

fatality rate for the top 40 percent of counties by poverty rate was 14.9 per 100,000 population versus 11.0 

for the country.
6 

The FHWA provides financial aid (Federal-aid) to States for the improvement of 

Federal-aid highways through the Federal-aid highway program (FAHP). A Federal-aid 

highway is a public highway eligible for assistance under Chapter 1, of title 23, United 

States Code (U.S.C.), other than a highway functionally classified as a local road or rural 

minor collector (23 U.S.C. 101(a)(6)). 

Between 2016 and 2020, 85 percent7

 of all public highway fatalities occurred on 

Federal-aid highways, which represent 25 percent8

 of the entire public highway network. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), legislated under 23 U.S.C. 148, is 

the core funding program administered by FHWA under FAHP for safety, and HSIP 

funds are eligible for use on all public highways. State, local, and Tribal agencies mainly 

use HSIP funds when addressing safety; however, this dedicated source of safety funds is 

relatively small compared to other Federal-aid funding programs, representing only about 

6 percent of the total FAHP.9

 FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP 

alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s highways and is seeking 

comments through this notice on how to include measures that improve safety 

performance across Federal-aid projects. Examples of other FHWA formula funds that 

can be used for safety improvements include the National Highway Performance 

Program, and the Surface Transportation Block Grant program, which includes the 

Transportation Alternatives Set Aside funds which authorize funding for programs and 

7 NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2016-2019 Final and 2020 Annual Report File 

(ARF) Fatalities in motor vehicle traffic crashes by year and Federal highway status. Federal-aid highways 

include all Land Use and Functional System attributes in FARS except: Land Use attribute 1 (rural) and 

Functional System attributes 06 (minor collector) and 07 (local), Land Use attribute 2 (Urban) and 

Functional System attribute 07 (local), and unknowns from Land Use and Functional System.

8 FHWA Highway Statistics 2019 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/hm16.cfm) 9 Federal-aid apportioned programs under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-

58, also known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisaninfrastructure-law/funding.cfm).
7 

projects including Safe Routes to Schools projects. The FAHP funds also may be used 

for any pedestrian and bicycle facility, whether on or off-road. 

Regulations

States that receive Federal-aid under the FAHP for their Federal-aid highways 

must adhere to applicable Federal statutes and regulations. Among the requirements 

included in these statutes and regulations are requirements pertaining to the consideration 

of safety. For example, States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) establish 

and implement planning processes that provide for the consideration and implementation 

of projects, strategies, and services that will address the safety of the transportation 

system for motorized and nonmotorized users. See 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135. In addition,

23 U.S.C. 109 requires that each Federal-aid project provide facilities that are conducive 

to safety and specifies that the Secretary must consider the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) in 

developing design criteria. See 23 U.S.C. 109(a)(1) and 109(c)(2)(D). This statute also 

requires that the design of a highway on the National Highway System (NHS), other than 

a highway also on the Interstate System, consider access for other modes of 

transportation. 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1)(D). The FHWA’s Design Standards regulations

codified in Part 625 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (23 CFR Part 

625 or Part 625) note in 23 CFR 625.2(c) that an important goal of FHWA is to provide 

the highest practical and feasible level of safety for people and property associated with 

the Nation’s highway transportation systems. 

Safety Beyond Roadways
8 

Starting with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240), Federal transportation laws and policies have placed 

increasing emphasis on improving the safety and comfort of pedestrian and bicycle 

travel. The DOT and FHWA have sought to provide travelers with a choice of 

transportation modes and increase the percentage of trips made by nonmotorized modes 

of travel. Statutory changes have established broad eligibility of bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities for Federal-aid funding. See 23 U.S.C. 133(h), 206, 208, and 217. However, an 

increasing portion of highway fatalities are people outside of automobiles, primarily 

pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists, and in 2021 these modes made up more than 

one-third of all traffic fatalities.

10 

The House Report accompanying the DOT, Housing and Urban Development, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for 2021 requested a report from FHWA 

reviewing its current policies, rules, and procedures to determine their impact on safety 

for road users, particularly those outside of automobiles. FHWA delivered this report, 

“Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities 

and Challenges,” in March 2022.11 Potential solutions proposed in the report include the 

issuance of guidance to help ensure that FHWA design standards are interpreted and 

applied to better consider safety for all users, and the identification of methods to 

increase the assessment of safety outcomes across all types of Federal-aid projects to 

improve safety performance. Specific actions under these solutions include requesting 

information from stakeholders. 

10 NHTSA Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 

2021, May 2022, available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298 11 Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities and Challenges 

(dot.gov)
9 

Accordingly, FHWA requests comments on two specific areas of the FAHP: (1) 

the design of roads on the NHS; and (2) how the safety performance of Federal-aid 

projects should be assessed and how to include measures that improve safety 

performance across Federal-aid projects. 

Design Standards for the NHS

The FHWA requests information to inform efforts to develop road designs for all 

users that can reduce motor vehicle-related crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist risk, and 

encourage walking and bicycling for transportation by incorporating well-designed 

multimodal infrastructure. The BIL defines “Complete Streets standards or policies” as 

those which “ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all users of the 

transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, 

children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight 

vehicles.”12 Complete Streets prioritize safety, comfort, and connectivity to destinations 

for people who use the surface transportation network and reduce motor vehicle-related 

crashes and pedestrian and bicyclist risk by incorporating well-designed multimodal

infrastructure. They also can promote walking and bicycling by providing safer places to 

achieve physical activity through transportation.13 Many State and local governments 

have adopted Complete Streets policies, ordinances, or laws to integrate people and place 

in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of our transportation 

networks.14

12 U.S. Congress. “H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.”, Section 11206(a), Accessed 

November 2021.

13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Guide to Preventative Services, accessed 

December 23, 2021, available at https://www.thecommunityguide.org/resources/one-pager-builtenvironment-approaches-increase-physical-activity. 14 Smart Growth America Website, accessed on November 3, 2021, available at 

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/ 
10 

The FHWA Design Standards regulations in Part 625 govern design standards and 

standard specifications applicable to new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing 

(except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS. 

The NHS consists of roadways important to the Nation’s economy, defense, and 

mobility, including all Interstate highways, other principal arterials, as well as other 

highways and city streets. Part 625 impacts the design of city streets that are on the NHS, 

regardless of ownership or project funding.15 Part 625 incorporates several publications 

by reference, including AASHTO publication, A Policy on Geometric Design Highways 

and Streets (Green Book). The Green Book provides a range of acceptable values for 

geometric features, allowing for flexibility that best suits the context and vision of the 

community while satisfying the purpose for the project and needs of all users. When the 

design standards in Part 625 are not met, FHWA, or a State department of transportation 

(State DOT) that has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight 

agreement, may consider design exceptions. 

Traffic Control Device standards are not covered by Part 625, but by the Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). The MUTCD

is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR 655, and is not a design standard. A Notice of 

Proposed Amendments to the MUTCD was issued for public comment16 as part of a 

rulemaking. Development of a Final Rule to issue a new edition of the MUTCD is 

underway and this request is not seeking comments on the MUTCD. 

Data-Driven Safety Assessments

15 FHWA Website on the NHS, including maps in each State, accessed on November 3, 2021, available at 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/. 16 85 FR 80898, December 14, 2020.
11 

Many State DOTs have developed tools, policies, and procedures to assess and 

analyze the safety performance of their existing facilities and projects, and to determine 

project alternatives and countermeasures that yield optimal safety performance, thus 

contributing to reduced fatalities and serious injuries on their transportation systems. 

These tools, policies and procedures include the use of Data-Driven Safety Analysis 

(DDSA) techniques that inform State DOTs’ and local agencies’ decisionmaking and 

target investments that improve safety and equity. DDSA is the application of the latest 

evidence-based tools and approaches to assess an existing or proposed transportation 

facility’s future safety performance, including the use of AASHTO’s HSM.17

Accordingly, safety is a required consideration in the development of a highway 

project for funding under the FAHP. Also, FHWA has taken various steps to further the 

consideration of safety in project development. However, in the wake of the recent

trends related to fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, more needs to be done. 

Therefore, FHWA is interested in hearing from the public on a range of questions related 

to whether changes to Part 625 or other regulations codified in Title 23 of the CFR are 

needed, how the safety performance of Federal-aid projects should be assessed, and how 

to include measures that improve safety performance across Federal-aid projects. The 

FHWA may use the information gathered through the public comments to consider future 

rulemaking options related to the design standards for projects on the NHS or for safety 

performance assessments on Federal-aid projects, or to develop resources (i.e. case 

studies, informational briefs, etc.) that can assist agencies with improving safety for all 

users when developing projects regardless of funding source. 

17 AASHTO HSM, 1st ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2010, is available at 

http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx. 
12 

For purposes of this RFI and as referenced throughout the questions, a safety 

performance assessment involves the application of analytical tools and techniques for 

quantifying the potential effects of transportation investment decisions in terms of crash 

frequency and severity.

Request for Comments and Information 

The FHWA requests comments on the following questions. Please indicate in 

your written comments which question(s) you are answering. 

Improving Road Safety for All Users 

1. What steps are being taken by your agency (if you are commenting on behalf of 

an agency) or an agency you are familiar with to improve safety for all roadway 

users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, children, older 

individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles? How are 

equity and demographic data considered?

2. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or policies (or similar

policies), what benefits does your agency see in developing Complete Streets? 

Provide examples and citations to relevant regulations, policies, procedures, 

performance measures, or other materials where possible.

3. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or policies (or similar

policies), what challenges has your agency experienced when implementing your 

Complete Streets policy?

4. For agencies that have adopted Complete Streets standards or policies (or similar

policies), but have not adopted an alternative classification system, how do you 

identify the appropriate context(s) for the application of a complete streets design 
13 

model? Under what types of circumstances have you found the development of 

Complete Streets to be inappropriate? 

5. To inform decisions on street design, some agencies18 have adopted modal 

hierarchies, or alternative street classification systems, that prioritize pedestrians, 

bicyclists, or others on certain street types based on context.19 Has your agency 

incorporated such a hierarchy, or classification into agency policies, and if so, 

what benefits have been realized? Please provide a link to your documents for 

reference.

Design Standards for the NHS 

6. How could the FHWA regulations governing Design Standards for Highways 

(Part 625) be revised to consistently support prioritization of the safety of all users 

across all project types?

7. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR are needed to 

equitably improve safety for people of all ages and abilities who use urban and 

suburban streets? 

8. What changes to other FHWA regulations codified at Title 23, CFR are needed to 

equitably improve safety for people of all ages and abilities who use rural 

roadways, including in rural towns? 

9. What, if any, elements of design are not adequately covered by the existing design 

standards in Part 625? 

18 Example: Portland, Oregon, uses the prioritization of modes shown on p. 4 at 

https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/tsp-101-two-pager-03-21-2019.pdf. 19 Example: Florida DOT Context Classification Guide, Figure 15. 

https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/roadway/completestreets/files/fdotcontext-classification.pdf?sfvrsn=12be90da_4. 
14 

10. What specific provisions of Part 625 present an obstacle to equitably improving 

safety for people outside of vehicles, and why? 

11. Are there additional documents that FHWA should incorporate by reference in 

Part 625 to better facilitate the context-sensitive design of streets that safely serve 

all users? Please identify the documents and describe why they should be 

referenced in the regulation. 

12. Does Part 625 create any impediments to developing projects that meet the goals 

of your agency? If so, what goals are impeded, what are the impediments, and 

how would you suggest the regulation be revised? 

Safety Performance Assessment Applicability

13. For which current projects (i.e., by improvement type, funding program/level, 

facility type, etc.) are safety performance assessments or analyses conducted in 

your State? 

14. To what extent is the safety performance assessed on non-HSIP funded projects? 

15. What policies or procedures on conducting project-specific safety performance 

assessments and analyses does your agency have? Provide examples and citations 

to relevant laws, regulations, policies, procedures, or other materials where 

possible. 

Conducting a Safety Performance Assessment

16. What methods, tools, and types of safety performance assessments are used to 

analyze project-specific safety performance? What are the minimum data and 

analysis requirements that should be considered on how to conduct a safety 

performance assessment? 
15 

17. With whom do States engage (i.e. counties, cities, MPOs, rural planning 

organizations, and other political subdivisions) when assessing safety 

performance? How do States engage the public or use the safety performance 

assessment results to communicate to the public using inclusive and 

representative processes? 

18. How are safety performance assessments integrated into the overall project 

development cycle? At which stage(s) of the project development process (e.g. 

planning and programming, environmental analysis, design, operations and 

maintenance) are project-specific safety performance assessments conducted? 

Are evaluations conducted after the project has been implemented? Responses 

may include examples of projects where safety performance assessments were 

conducted and how they informed the final project deliverables. 

19. How is safety performance assessed or considered at the system level planning or 

early transportation project identification/prioritization stage? How is network 

screening used to inform project decisionmaking? 

Safety Performance Assessment Process Evaluation and Outcomes 

20. What indicators or measures have been used to determine the effectiveness of 

safety performance assessments?

21. To what extent is the safety performance assessment or analysis used to inform 

project decisionmaking? How is safety performance weighted in relation to 

factors such as environmental impact or traffic congestion? Are there 

requirements to include countermeasures or evaluation of alternative designs that 

are expected to improve safety performance? If yes, please provide examples of 
16 

the requirements or projects where the safety performance assessment led to the 

implementation of countermeasures and strategies that improved safety 

performance. 

22. How is safety performance evaluated after the project is implemented? To what 

extent are countermeasures, alternative designs, or strategies to improve safety 

performance replicated on other projects, based on past project evaluations?

Safety Performance Assessment Implementation Considerations

23. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible Federal 

requirements for safety performance assessments on certain Federal-aid projects?

24. What challenges or concerns does your agency see with possible Federal 

requirements for implementing cost-effective safety improvements resulting from 

safety performance assessments?

25. What benefits does your agency see with possible Federal requirements for safety 

performance assessments on certain Federal-aid projects where safety may not be 

the sole motivation for the project? What benefits does your agency see for any 

Federal requirements for cost-effective safety improvements resulting from the 

assessments?

26. What criteria, thresholds, characteristics, or other factors should States consider 

when determining when to conduct a project-specific safety performance 

assessment or analysis for projects on the Federal-aid highway system? 

27. What additional resources (i.e. staff, guidance, tools, budget, etc.) would be 
17 

necessary to adequately assess the expected safety performance of Federal-aid 

projects?

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103, 109, 134, 135 and 402; Sec. 1404 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 

Stat. 1312; 49 CFR 1.85; 23 CFR Part 625.

Signed in Washington, DC: 

 

 

 

 __________________________ 

Stephanie Pollack

 Deputy Administrator

 Federal Highway Administration