30-Day FR

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES

60228

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 23, 2025 / Notices

Road project is a new location east-west
roadway within the city limits of the
City of Laredo. It is situated about a mile
and a half north of IH 69 West and
aligned with A.F. Muller Boulevard,
directly connecting FM 1472 (Mines
Road) with IH 35. The project will be
approximately 2.85 miles in length and
consist of four travel lanes, two in each
direction, and will have a raised
concrete median in the center. The
actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies
and the laws under which such actions
were taken are described in the
Categorical Exclusion Determination
issued on October 2, 2025, and other
documents in the TxDOT project file.
The Categorical Exclusion
Documentation and other documents in
the TxDOT project file are available by
contacting the TxDOT Laredo District
Office at 1817 Bob Bullock Loop,
Laredo, TX 78043; telephone: (956) 712–
7400.
7. FM 529 from Waller County Line to
Katy Hockley Cutoff Road, Harris
County, Texas. The project includes
widening FM 529 from a two-lane
roadway to a four-lane roadway between
FM 362 and Katy Hockley Road and
from two lanes to six lanes between
Katy Hockley Cutoff Road and SH 99.
The project is approximately 12 miles
long. The actions by TxDOT and Federal
agencies and the laws under which such
actions were taken are described in the
Categorical Exclusion Determination
issued on October 2, 2025, and other
documents in the TxDOT project file.
The Categorical Exclusion
Determination and other documents in
the TxDOT project file are available by
contacting the TxDOT Houston District
Office located at 7600 Washington
Avenue, Houston, TX 77007; telephone:
(713) 802–5000.
8. FM 755 Rehab Super 2 from Starr/
Brooks County Line to FM 1017, Starr
County, Texas. The project will consist
of the reconstruction of the roadway by
adding two feet of additional pavement
on each side of the road, and the
addition of passing lanes. The road
footprint will be widened from 40 to 44
feet throughout the project limits. The
project is 7.949 miles long. The actions
by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the
laws under which such actions were
taken are described in the Categorical
Exclusion Determination issued on
October 31, 2025, and other documents
in the TxDOT project file. The
Categorical Exclusion Determination
and other documents in the TxDOT
project file are available by contacting
the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600
West Interstate 2, Pharr, TX 78577;
telephone: (956) 702–6101.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:11 Dec 22, 2025

Jkt 268001

9. Barbarosa Road/Saur Lane from FM
1101 to Saengerhalle Road, Bexar
County, Texas. The project will upgrade
the existing roadway to have two travel
lanes in each direction with a
combination of center turn lane and
medians. Turn lanes will be constructed
at major intersections. A continuous
sidewalk will be provided along the
northern side of the roadway between
FM 1101 and Westmeyer Road. A
shared-use path will be provided
between FM 1101 and Saengerhalle
Road on the southside of the roadway.
The actions by TxDOT and Federal
agencies and the laws under which such
actions were taken are described in the
Categorical Exclusion Determination
issued on November 20, 2025, and other
documents in the TxDOT project file.
The Categorical Exclusion
Determination and other documents in
the TxDOT project file are available by
contacting the TxDOT San Antonio
District Office at 4615 NW Loop 410,
San Antonio, TX 78229; telephone:
(210) 615–1110.
10. 30 East Corridor From I–45 to
Ferguson Road, Dallas County, Texas.
The project will widen I–30 between I–
45 and Ferguson Road from eight
mainlanes (four in each direction) to ten
mainlanes (five in each direction) and
add two reversible managed lanes in the
center median. The mainlanes will be
depressed to a lower elevation than that
of the proposed frontage roads. Access
ramps throughout the project will be
reconstructed. The project will
construct new cross street bridges across
the depressed mainlanes. The project
length is approximately five miles. The
actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies
and the laws under which such actions
were taken are described in the Final
EA, the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) issued on October 24,
2025, and other documents in the
TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI, and
other documents in the TxDOT project
file are available by contacting the
TxDOT Dallas District Office at 4777 E
Highway 80, Mesquite, TX 75150;
telephone: (214) 320–4480.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)).
Issued on: December 18, 2025.
Ed Burgos-Gomez,
Acting Director Program Development,
Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025–23636 Filed 12–22–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P

PO 00000

Frm 00173

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2024–0255]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Approval of a New
Information Collection Request: Study
of Warning Devices for Stopped
Commercial Motor Vehicles
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
FMCSA announces its plan to submit
the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval. This notice invites
comments on a proposed information
collection titled ‘‘Study of Warning
Devices for Stopped Commercial Motor
Vehicles.’’ It is an experimental study
that requires data collection for
evaluating whether warning devices
meaningfully influence crash-relevant
aspects of human performance in the
presence of a parked or disabled
commercial motor vehicle (PDCMV),
and if so, how and to what extent. These
data collection efforts are expected to
require the participation of 256 drivers.
A total of 9 comments were provided in
response to the 60-day Federal Register
notice (91 FR 1591). The total burden
hours reported in the 60-day FR
published on January 8, 2025, has now
been decreased by 128 hours after
FMCSA inadvertently included but has
now removed the 128 hours from the
burden estimate. The 128 hours is the
time estimated for respondents to travel
to and from the location where the
collection of information will occur.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received on or before January 22, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be
submitted within 30 days of publication
of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain. Find this
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open
for Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Samuel White, Research Division, DOT,
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590; 202–366–3068;
Samuel.White@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM

23DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 23, 2025 / Notices
Title: Study of Warning Devices for
Stopped Commercial Motor Vehicles
OMB Control Number: 2126–00XX.
Type of Request: New ICR.
Respondents: Drivers.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
256.
Estimated Time per Response: 2.0 to
2.5 Hours.
Expiration Date: This is a new ICR.
Frequency of Response: Once.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
504.92 hours.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES

Background
PDCMVs on the road negatively
impact traffic operations and safety.1 To
increase the conspicuity of PDCMVs
and mitigate crash risk, FMCSA requires
specific warning devices to be carried 2
on all commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) and, except in the case of
necessary traffic stops, be deployed 3
near the vehicle whenever it is stopped
on the road or shoulder. The Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
prescribe specific rules 4 concerning
how and where the warning devices
must be placed, based on road and
traffic attributes (e.g., whether the road
is straight or curved, whether the
vehicle is stopped in a business or
residential district, whether the road is
divided or undivided, etc.) as well as
the presence of conditions affecting
visibility (e.g., time of day, physical
obstructions, etc.). These requirements
follow from the basic notion that
increasing the conspicuity of a PDCMV
makes it easier to see and recognize,
thereby reducing the risk of a crash
involving passing motorists.
In addition, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
prescribes performance and design
specifications 5 for warning devices
under 49 CFR 571.125 of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS). For instance, this standard
establishes minimum specifications for
factors affecting the conspicuity
(including reflectivity, color,
luminance) of warning triangles, the
1 Roberts, G. L., & Lynn, C. (2003). Passenger
vehicle crashes into stationary large trucks:
incidence and possible countermeasures (No. VTRC
03–CR17). Virginia Transportation Research
Council.
2 49 CFR 393.95. (2024). Emergency equipment on
all power units. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title49/section-393.95.
3 49 CFR 392.22. (2024). Emergency signals;
stopped commercial motor vehicles. https://
www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/section-392.22.
4 Placement of warning devices—Special rules. 49
CFR 392.22(b)(2) (1998). https://www.ecfr.gov/
current/title-49/part-392#p-392.22(b)(2).
5 FMVSS no. 125; Warning devices. 49 CFR
571.125 (2012). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section571.125.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:11 Dec 22, 2025

Jkt 268001

most commonly utilized type of
warning device (due to their reusability,
shelf life, and fire-risk safety concerns
compared to flares or fuses). The
purpose of this standard is ‘‘to assure
that the warning devices can be readily
observed during daytime and nighttime
lighting conditions, have a standardized
shape for quick message recognition,
and perform properly when
deployed.’’ 6
Public interest in warning device
requirements for PDCMVs has increased
in recent years for several reasons. For
example, advances in automated driving
system (ADS) technology have raised
critical questions regarding potential
barriers to regulatory compliance with
warning device safety standards 7 and
regulations 8 which reference or require
a ‘‘driver.’’ In addition, alternative types
of warning devices developed by
industry, including those intended to
increase driver safety during device
deployment, have resulted in multiple
applications for exemption from the
corresponding safety regulations.9 10
These recent issues related to warning
device requirements also call attention
to the historically unresolved questions
of whether the use of such devices
improves traffic safety and, if so, how
and to what extent.
Past attempts by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)11 12 and other
researchers 13 to answer those questions
6 FMVSS; Warning devices, 58 FR 27514 (May 10,
1993). https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_
slice/1993/5/10/27507-27517.pdf#page=8.
7 Kim, A., Perlman, D., Bogard, D., & Harrington,
R. (2016). Review of federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) for automated vehicles. John A.
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, for
NHTSA and USDOT Intelligent Transportation
Systems Joint Program Office. https://
rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260.
8 Perlman, D., Bogard, D., Epstein, A., Santalucia,
A., & Kim, A. (2018). Review of the federal motor
carrier safety regulations for automated commercial
vehicles: Preliminary assessment of interpretation
and enforcement challenges, questions, and gaps
(FMCSA–RRT–17–013). John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center. https://
rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/35426.
9 Parts and accessories necessary for safe
operation; Pi Variables, Inc; Application for an
exemption, 88 FR 40920 (June 22, 2023). https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-06-22/pdf/
2023-13205.pdf.
10 Parts and accessories necessary for safe
operation; Exemption application from Waymo
LLC, and Aurora Operations, Inc., 88 FR 13489
(Mar. 3, 2023). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2023-03-03/pdf/2023-04385.pdf.
11 Lyles, R. W. (1980). Effective warning devices
for parked/disabled vehicles (No. FHWA–RD–80–65
Final Rpt.). University of Maine, Orono, for Federal
Highway Administration.
12 Knoblauch, R.L., & Tobey, H.N. (1980). Safety
aspects of using vehicle hazard warning lights,
Volume 2 (No. FHWA/RD–80–102). Biotechnology,
Inc., for Federal Highway Administration.
13 Allen, M.J., Miller, S.D., & Short, J.L. (1973).
The effect of flares and triangular distress signals on

PO 00000

Frm 00174

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

60229

yielded generally inconclusive or
inconsistent results, which possibly
influenced NHTSA’s past decision not
to pursue conducting its own research
on the topic.14 FMCSA (previously
under FHWA) itself has never
conducted experimental research on the
impact of using warning devices. As the
only regulatory authority which still
requires CMV operators to use warning
devices, the responsibility to answer
these questions finally and definitively
is best charged to FMCSA.
Given the increasing focus on ADS,
questions surrounding the safety of
CMV drivers when deploying warning
devices, and the availability of new
technology and alternative devices since
these questions were last explored in
the 1980s, there is a need to thoroughly
evaluate the effectiveness of warning
devices under current regulations. In
addition, advanced research
instruments unavailable or not in use at
the time of all past research on this
topic are now in common use and
would permit far more sophisticated
analyses of the effects of warning
devices on driver behavior. This
includes sensors which can precisely
measure and record the location of
vehicles (e.g., differential Global
Positioning System), eye-tracking
devices which allow the researcher to
determine the precise moment when a
driver first glanced at a PDCMV, and
instrumented vehicles which record
accurate, high-frequency data related to
drivers’ interactions with a vehicle’s
controls.
FMCSA plans to implement these
modern tools in a controlled experiment
at a closed-course, state-of-the-art
driving research facility that will allow
the most comprehensive examination of
the effects of warning devices to date.
The results of the study may support
future rulemaking related to warning
devices and provide baseline data
necessary to inform Agency decisions
on exemption applications for
alternative warning device products.
FMCSA published the 60-day Federal
Register notice on January 8, 2025, and
the comment period closed on March
10, 2025 (90 FR 1591). A total of nine
comments were received from the
public. These comments revolved
around nine themes: regulatory
considerations and impact, environment
or condition-based study factors, study
factors for other devices, automated
vehicle considerations, safety benefits of
highway traffic. Optometry and Vision Science,
50(4), 305–315.
14 Federal motor vehicle safety standards;
Warning devices, 59 FR 49586 (September
29,1994).https://archives.federalregister.gov/
issuelslice/1994/9/29/49585-49591.pdf#page=2.

E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM

23DEN1

60230

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 23, 2025 / Notices

and effectiveness of warning devices,
and risks or challenges with warning
devices. These are all important
comments for FMCSA to consider while
conducting the study or when making
decisions based on the results of the
study. However, none of the comments
directly address the proposed
information collection or its associated
costs/impacts. As such, FMCSA
summarizes the comments but provides
no response. Many comments touched
on multiple issues; however, the
comments below are organized based on
the primary feedback provided.
Regulatory Considerations and Impact
There is widespread recognition that
regulatory gaps and complexities hinder
effective deployment and use of
warning devices. Commenters noted
that current rules do not adequately
address the overuse of warning lights,
and that knowledge gaps continue to
weaken the regulatory framework’s
effectiveness. Additionally, legal
loopholes and the complexity of
implementing regulations were seen as
barriers to the adoption of improved
safety measures. Nonetheless, many
comments supported FMCSA’s ongoing
regulatory efforts and encouraged
further research to improve and
modernize safety rules.
Environment or Condition-Based Study
Factors
Environmental factors were a
consistent theme, with many comments
highlighting how visibility issues—
compounded by driver inattention,
curves in the road, and lack of rumble
strips—reduce the effectiveness of
warning devices. Visibility varies
significantly across road types, making
it essential for studies to account for
these conditions. Several comments
advocated for studies to explicitly
consider how different environmental
scenarios impact both warning device
performance and driver response.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES

Study Factors for Other Devices
The public expressed concerns about
the reliability and effectiveness of
alternative warning devices. Some noted
that excessive or competing lights, such
as flashing beacons, can confuse drivers
and reduce recognition of genuine
hazards. Others raised the issue of
power failure risks in beacons and the
failure of some warning devices in realworld conditions. There was strong
support for the evaluation of new
warning technologies and a call to
remain open to innovative solutions that
might enhance safety outcomes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:11 Dec 22, 2025

Jkt 268001

Automated Vehicle Considerations
With deployment nearing of driverout ADS-equipped CMVs, commenters
raised important questions about how
these technologies interface with
existing safety requirements. Many
pointed out that automated vehicles
(AVs) lack the ability to deploy warning
devices which introduces new
regulatory challenges. Concerns
included the need for AVs to have
redundant safety systems and the
potential mismatch between other
driver expectations and AV capabilities.
The comments emphasized the need for
additional human-factors research,
particularly regarding how drivers
maintain attention and readiness to
assume control of ADS-equipped CMVs.
There was also a call for developing
specific safety solutions for ADSequipped CMVs and addressing gaps in
AV breakdown procedures.
Safety Benefits of and Effectiveness of
Warning Devices
Despite some concerns, many
commenters acknowledged the critical
role of warning devices in preventing
accidents. Proper use of these devices
was praised for offering early hazard
detection and for being simple yet
effective. The comments reinforced the
idea that even basic tools can provide
significant safety benefits when
deployed correctly. Public feedback also
urged FMCSA to validate the
effectiveness of these tools through
research and ensure that any new safety
technologies meet or exceed this
benchmark.
Risks or Challenges With Warning
Devices
The misuse or overuse of warning
devices was a key concern, as it can
reduce their clarity and effectiveness in
signaling real hazards. Inattentive
drivers, outdated devices, and the risk
of device placement on the roadside
were all cited as challenges. Some
commenters also mentioned that certain
warning devices may be dangerous,
especially when their deployment puts
drivers at risk. These concerns
underscore the need for updated
regulations and evaluations that reflect
current and emerging road conditions
and technologies.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the performance of
FMCSA’s functions; (2) the accuracy of
the estimated burden; (3) ways for
FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected

PO 00000

Frm 00175

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

information; and (4) ways that the
burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected
information.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Jonathan Mueller,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of
Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2025–23762 Filed 12–22–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[FTA Docket No. FTA 2025–0237]

Agency Information Collection Activity
Under OMB Review: All Stations
Accessibility Program (ASAP)
Federal Transit Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of request for comments.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the intention of the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to
request the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to approve a request for
an extension without change to an
existing information collection: All
Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP).
DATES: Comments must be submitted
before February 23, 2026.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that your
comments are not entered more than
once into the docket, submit comments
identified by the docket number by only
one of the following methods:
1. Website: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on the U.S. Government electronic
docket site. All electronic submissions
must be made to the U.S. Government
electronic docket site at https://
www.regulations.gov. Commenters
should follow the directions below for
mailed and hand-delivered comments.
2. Fax: 202–366–7951.
3. Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Docket Operations, M–30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Docket Operations, M–30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number for this
notice at the beginning of your
comments. Submit two copies of your
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM

23DEN1