|
|---|
|
Improving Road Safety for All Users on Federal-Aid Projects Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Highway Administration Byline: Gloria M. Shepherd Date: 3 February 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Roads & Highways, Safety
|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7510-7514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02285]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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.
[[Page 7511]]
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 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 March 20, 2023.
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 SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 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, dot.gov">Phillip.Bobitz@dot.gov, or Elizabeth Hilton, Office of
Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements, (202) 924-8618,
dot.gov">Elizabeth.Hilton@dot.gov; for legal questions contact Lev Gabrilovich,
FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-3813,
dot.gov">Lev.Gabrilovich@dot.gov. FHWA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
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 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Newly Released Estimates Show Traffic Fatalities Reached a
16-year High in 2021 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-
estimate-2021-traffic-
fatalities#:~:text=The%20National%20Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,the%20
38%2C824%20fatalities%20in%202020.
\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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 7512]]
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.
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 percent \7\ of all public highway
fatalities occurred on Federal-aid highways, which represent 25 percent
\8\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/funding.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to
Congress on Opportunities and Challenges (dot.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
[[Page 7513]]
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-built-environment-approaches-increase-physical-activity.
\14\ Smart Growth America website, accessed on November 3, 2021,
available at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 comment \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 85 FR 80898, December 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data-Driven Safety Assessments
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ AASHTO HSM, 1st ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2010, is
available at http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 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 agencies \18\ 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
[[Page 7514]]
been realized? Please provide a link to your documents for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/fdot-context-classification.pdf?sfvrsn=12be90da_4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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?
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 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 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.
Gloria M. Shepherd,
Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-02285 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P