[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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#71151b1e191f021e1f311f190502105f151e055f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0a040106001d01002e00061a1d0f400a011a40090118">[email protected]</span></a>. In FHWA, Suzanne 
Stack, Office of Highway Safety, Telephone 202/366-2620, Fax 202/366-
2249, Internet address is <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deadb4adaabfbdb59eb7b0aabbacb9bfaabbf0bab1aaf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3d0c9d0d7c2c0c8e3cacdd7c6d1c4c2d7c68dc7ccd78dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>.

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.<SUP>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.'' 
<SUP>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.<SUP>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,<SUP>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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     <SUP>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

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>