Overview
On December 17, 2025, two FHWA rollbacks took effect that sound boring—and matter anyway. The agency removed the formal, on-the-books requirements that told the Forest Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs how to run safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for certain federally funded roads.
This is the tension at the heart of the story: supporters see dead, outdated rules finally swept away; critics see guardrails quietly disappearing. The underlying work doesn’t necessarily stop, but the accountability mechanism shifts—from regulations you can point to, to guidance you can argue about.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
FHWA funds and oversees highways and federal-lands transportation and sets key national transportation rules.
DOT sets national transportation policy and houses FHWA and other modal administrations.
The Forest Service manages national forests and relies on transportation assets for access and operations.
BIA supports tribal governments and administers programs including transportation coordination with FHWA.
Timeline
-
The rescissions take effect
Effective DateParts 971 and 973 are removed and reserved in the CFR.
-
FHWA finalizes rescissions for Forest Highways and Indian Reservation Roads
RuleFinal rules publish; FHWA says guidance and statute are sufficient.
-
FHWA launches the cleanup: proposes rescinding Parts 971 and 973
RulemakingNPRMs argue the CFR parts are outdated after MAP-21 and unnecessary.
-
MAP-21 rewires federal-lands and tribal road programs
LegalCongress replaces “develop by rule” with “implement,” and reorganizes the programs.
-
FHWA writes the playbook: Parts 971 and 973 created
RuleFHWA issues final rules establishing Forest Highway and IRR management-system requirements.
-
Congress orders federal-lands agencies to build management systems “by rule”
LegalTEA-21 sets a rule-based mandate for safety, bridge, pavement, congestion systems.
Scenarios
Nothing Breaks: Agencies Keep the Same Practices, Just Not in the CFR
Discussed by: FHWA’s final-rule rationale; federal-lands transportation program practitioners
The most likely outcome is boring continuity: the Forest Service, BIA, and FHWA keep using similar asset-management tools because they’re operationally necessary. The difference is legal posture: fewer “musts” in regulations, more implementation through manuals, templates, and program agreements—and more room for variation by region and agency.
Accountability Fight: Tribes or Oversight Bodies Push for Harder Standards
Discussed by: Tribal transportation administrators; congressional staff; administrative-law attorneys
If project outcomes worsen—or if stakeholders suspect data quality and prioritization are slipping—pressure builds for audits, hearings, or statutory language that restores more explicit requirements. The trigger would be a visible safety failure, a funding dispute, or evidence that guidance alone isn’t producing consistent planning and reporting.
The Rollback Spreads: FHWA Removes More Legacy Program Rules Across the Board
Discussed by: DOT deregulation agenda watchers; Federal Register trendlines across 2025
These rescissions are part of a broader pattern in 2025: pruning older rules where statutory foundations shifted years ago. If the strategy continues, expect more targeted deletions, more “removed and reserved” CFR parts, and more reliance on guidance—especially ahead of surface transportation reauthorization deadlines.
Historical Context
ISTEA’s Management-Systems Era (States Required to Build Formal Systems)
1991–1998What Happened
Congress required states to build multiple transportation management systems, and FHWA/FTA codified them in regulation. The idea was consistent, data-driven planning for pavements, bridges, safety, and congestion—before today’s performance-management vocabulary took over.
Outcome
Short term: States built processes and reporting structures to comply with the new federal framework.
Long term: The model later shifted toward performance measures and asset management, with old rules eventually treated as obsolete.
Why It's Relevant
It shows a repeating pattern: federal mandates create systems, then politics and statutes loosen the rule-based grip.
MAP-21 Rebuilds Federal-Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs
2012–2015What Happened
MAP-21 replaced the old Federal Lands Highway Program structure and pushed agencies from “develop by rule” toward “implement” language. It also reframed how tribal transportation was administered under the Tribal Transportation Program.
Outcome
Short term: Programs and terminology changed, but many operational practices continued under new authorities.
Long term: A gap grew between what the CFR still said (2004-era) and what the statute and practice had become.
Why It's Relevant
FHWA is now closing that gap by deleting regulations instead of rewriting them.
FHWA Removes Obsolete National “Management and Monitoring Systems” Rules
1996–2025What Happened
FHWA finalized removal of long-standing regulations governing transportation management and monitoring systems, arguing they were obsolete after later statutory changes. The move reinforced a governance style: fewer prescriptive systems in regulation, more reliance on updated statutory frameworks and guidance.
Outcome
Short term: Old CFR scaffolding disappears, reducing compliance paperwork tied to outdated requirements.
Long term: Debate shifts to whether guidance can maintain consistency, comparability, and transparency.
Why It's Relevant
It’s the closest modern analogue: retiring a federal “systems” rulebook rather than modernizing it.