[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64388-64398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20218]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64388]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 624
[Docket No. FHWA-2020-0006]
RIN 2125-AF89
Interstate System Access
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FHWA proposes and requests comments on regulations governing
changes in access to the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate System). As a condition of
funding for Federal-aid highway projects, Federal law prohibits State
departments of transportation (State DOT) from adding any point of
access to or from the Interstate System without the approval of the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary). This proposed rule would
codify and clarify existing policies and practices regarding State DOT
requests for and FHWA approval of changes in access to the Interstate
System.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2023. Late
comments will be considered to the extent practicable. In compliance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, FHWA is also seeking comments on a
new information collection. All comments relating to the information
collection requirements should be submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and to FHWA at the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES
section on or before October 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should
be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for
FHWA. It is requested that comments sent to the OMB also be sent to the
FHWA rulemaking docket identified in the heading of this document.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name, and docket number (FHWA-2020-0006) or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2125-AF89). Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to: https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clayton Wellman, Office of
Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements (HICP-10), (202) 366-4658,
or via email at [email protected], or Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, Office
of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-3813, or via email at
[email protected]. 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
This document and all comments received may be viewed online
through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov using the
docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines
are also available at https://www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy
of this document may also 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.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments,
FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as
it becomes available after the comment period closing date and
interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new
material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the
comment period and after DOT has had the opportunity to review the
comments submitted.
Background and Legal Authority
It is in the national interest to preserve and enhance the
Interstate System to meet the needs of the 21st century by ensuring
that it provides the highest level of service in terms of safety and
mobility. Full control of access along the Interstate mainline and
ramps, along with control of access on the crossroad at interchanges,
is critical to such service. Under 23 U.S.C. 111 (section 111), all
agreements between the Secretary and State DOTs for the construction of
projects on the Interstate System shall provide that the State will not
add any points of access to, or exit from, the project in addition to
those approved by the Secretary in the plans for such project, without
the prior approval of the Secretary. Any change to an access point can
potentially add or remove access from the Interstate System. Therefore,
FHWA historically has interpreted the addition of an access point to
include the addition of a new, or modification of an existing,
interchange or access point along the Interstate System.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., 2017 Interstate Access Policy, dated May 22, 2017
(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary has delegated authority to administer section 111 to
the Federal Highway Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.85(a)(1).
Section 111(e) allows FHWA to delegate to a State DOT authority to
approve interstate justification reports (IJR) pertaining to certain
changes in access to the Interstate System.
[[Page 64389]]
Statement of the Problem
To facilitate implementation of these statutory requirements
regarding changes in access to the federally-funded Interstate System,
FHWA recognizes a need to codify and clarify current practices, as set
forth in FHWA policy, in regulations. When considering a request for a
change in access to the Interstate System, FHWA examines the safety,
operations, and engineering (SO&E) aspects of the requested change in
access. Historically, FHWA has done this by relying on the information
provided in an IJR submitted by the State DOT. The IJR contains the
project layouts, technical analyses, and other information supporting
the change in access request. To date, FHWA has determined whether to
approve the request based on the factors listed in FHWA's policy on
Access to the Interstate System (Policy).
FHWA initially developed and published the Policy in October 1990
(55 FR 42673) due to numerous requests by States for additional clarity
regarding the justification and documentation necessary to substantiate
proposed changes in access to the Interstate System. FHWA issued
subsequent revisions in February 1998, August 2009, and May 2017. The
February 11, 1998, revision (63 FR 7045) reflected the planning
requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA, Pub. L. 102-240) as implemented in 23 CFR part 450, to
clarify coordination between the access request and environmental
processes, and to update language. FHWA issued the 2009 Interstate
Access Policy (2009 Policy), published August 27, 2009 (74 FR 43743),
to reflect the direction provided in Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU,
Pub. L. 109-59) to clarify the operational and safety analysis and
assessment of impacts that provides the basis for proposed changes in
access to the Interstate System. The 2009 Policy also updated language
at various locations to reference Federal laws, regulations, and FHWA
policies. Finally, FHWA issued the 2017 Interstate Access Policy (2017
Policy), dated May 22, 2017 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfm), to reduce duplication with other project reviews. The
2017 Policy focused on the technical feasibility of any change in
access in support of FHWA's determination of safety, operational, and
engineering acceptability. These changes allow State DOTs to prepare
and submit an IJR demonstrating that the change in access will not have
a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the
Interstate facility (which includes mainline lanes, existing, new, or
modified ramps, and ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local
street network based on both the current and the planned future traffic
projections without including additional documentation related to other
activities in the project development (i.e., planning, preliminary
design, environmental analysis, final design, right-of-way acquisition,
and construction) process. Codifying and clarifying current practices
under the 2017 Policy in regulations, as proposed, will facilitate
implementation of the statutory requirements regarding changes in
access to the Interstate System. This process is separate from the de-
designation of Interstate segments that are processed through FHWA's
Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty, and this rulemaking would
not preclude de-designation.
Interstate System Access Regulation Proposed at 23 CFR Part 624
This proposed rule would establish requirements for the
justification and documentation necessary for a State DOT to
substantiate proposed changes in access to the Interstate System. These
requirements are consistent with the existing policies and practices
described above. It would facilitate decisionmaking regarding proposed
changes in access to the Interstate System in a manner that considers
safety, operations, and engineering. Consistent with 23 U.S.C. 109(a)
and (b) and 23 U.S.C. 111, new or modified points of access for
facilities subject to a Federal-aid project agreement must be approved
by FHWA. To facilitate these approvals, such new or modified points of
access would be required to be developed in accordance with the
requirements of this proposed rule. In addition, new or modified points
of access must comply with the requirements in 23 CFR part 625, Design
Standards for Highways.
FHWA's decision to approve new or revised access points to the
Interstate System must be supported by information justifying and
documenting the proposed change in access. Therefore, the decision to
approve a request is dependent on the IJR demonstrating that the
proposed change in access will not result in a significant adverse
impact on the Interstate System traffic operations or the safety in the
project's area of influence. In addition, the proposed access must
connect to a public road only, provide for all traffic movements, be
designed to meet or exceed current standards, and demonstrate that the
change in access can be clearly and adequately signed.
This proposed rule would identify the requirements for the change
in access request and documentation necessary to substantiate any
request that is submitted by a State DOT to FHWA for approval. Once the
State DOT's analysis is completed, it would be required to be
documented in the form of a standalone IJR and submitted by the State
DOT to FHWA for a SO&E determination. FHWA expects that an IJR will be
clearly written for someone who is not familiar with the project, the
area, or the State. The technical analysis presented in the IJR enables
FHWA to make an informed decision about safety and operational impacts
of the change in access to the Interstate System and make the SO&E
determination based on those impacts.
The proposed rule would not alter or restrict the option for FHWA
to delegate approval authority for the determination of SO&E
acceptability of IJRs to a State DOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 111(e). Nor
would it alter a State DOT's ability to assume FHWA environmental
review responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 326 (State assumption of
responsibility for categorical exclusions) or 23 U.S.C. 327 (Surface
transportation Project Delivery Program). As discussed in the section-
by-section analysis, under the proposed rule, FHWA may grant final
approval of an Interstate System change in access request once certain
conditions are met. There must be a favorable SO&E determination, and
the applicable transportation planning, conformity, congestion
management process, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
procedures must be completed. In addition, the alternative selected and
approved in the NEPA decision must also be the subject of a favorable
SO&E determination. FHWA retains approval authority for final approval
of changes in access to the Interstate System under the proposed rule.
The section-by-section analysis provides a detailed discussion of
the proposed rule.
Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 624.1 Purpose
In Sec. 624.1, FHWA proposes to set forth the purpose of part 624.
Specifically, the purpose is to prescribe requirements and procedures
for State requests for, and FHWA consideration of, changes in access to
the Interstate System. Both aspects of changes in access are reflected
throughout this proposal.
[[Page 64390]]
Section 624.3 Applicability
In Sec. 624.3(a), FHWA proposes to specify the conditions under
which proposed part 624 would be applicable. Historically, FHWA has
applied the Policy to changes in access regardless of the funding
source. This Policy was not applied to toll roads incorporated into the
Interstate System, except for segments where Federal-aid highway funds
have been expended or would be used for roadway improvements, or where
the toll road section has been added to the Interstate System under the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(4)(A). In this rulemaking, the proposed
applicability aligns with 23 U.S.C. 111(a), which ties the requirement
for approval of changes in access along the Interstate System to the
project agreement. On roadway segments where Federal-aid highway funds
or other funds administered under Title 23 have never been used and
will not be used for the modified access, there is no project agreement
and the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 111(a) do not apply. Therefore, under
Sec. 624.3(a)(1), applicability of the proposed rule is limited to
Interstate System segments for which Federal-aid highway funds or other
funds administered under Title 23 have been used in the past or are
used to develop a project. As used in the proposed rule, a segment is
the section of Interstate that falls within the project limits
specified in the project agreement for the use of Title 23 funds.
In proposed Sec. 624.3(b), FHWA would clarify that the
requirements of this part are not applicable to ramps providing access
to safety rest areas, information centers, weigh stations, and truck
inspection stations located within the Interstate right-of-way when
such areas are accessible to vehicles only to and from the Interstate
System. This section does not change the requirements of this part for
connections from other public facilities, which may be allowed if an
exception is granted in accordance with Sec. 624.7(f).
In proposed Sec. 624.3(c), FHWA would clarify that the
requirements of this part are not applicable to connections between
managed lanes and general-purpose lanes on the same Interstate highway.
Section 624.5 Definitions
In Sec. 624.5, FHWA proposes definitions for 11 terms specific to
the Interstate System access approval process. Access point is proposed
to mean any permanent (including those metered or closed at times)
connection to the through lanes or shoulders, collector-distributor
roads, or ramps on the Interstate System, including ``locked gate
access.'' This definition is consistent with the definition included in
the 1990 and 1998 policies. The 2009 and 2017 policies changed the
definition to focus on breaks in the control of access to the
Interstate System right-of-way. Under a risk-based approach to
stewardship and oversight, FHWA believes the focus should return to
permanent connections to the Interstate through lanes or shoulders,
collector-distributor roads, or ramps. Area of influence is proposed to
mean the geographic extent to which a proposed change in access will
affect traffic operations and safety. Change in access is proposed to
mean the addition of a new, or modification of an existing, interchange
or access point along the Interstate System. Interchange is proposed to
mean a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or
more grade separations that provides for the movement of traffic
between two or more roadways or highways on different levels.
Interstate Justification Report (IJR) is proposed to mean a technical
report that documents the SO&E aspects of a proposed change in access
to the Interstate System and demonstrates that the proposal meets the
provisions of part 624. Interstate System has the meaning given in 23
U.S.C. 101 and for purposes of part 624, we propose that it includes:
mainline lanes; shoulders; existing, new or modified ramps; collector-
distributor roads; and ramp termini. Partial interchange is proposed to
mean an interchange that does not provide for each of the eight basic
movements (or four basic movements in the case of a three-legged
interchange). Programmatic agreement (PA) is proposed to mean an
agreement between FHWA and a State DOT under 23 U.S.C. 111(e) to allow
a State to review an IJR and make the SO&E determination. Public road
as proposed has the meaning given in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(22). Safety,
Operations, and Engineering (SO&E) determination is proposed to mean
the technical determination of whether the proposed location,
configuration, geometric design, and signing related to the proposed
change in access may be reasonably expected to serve the anticipated
traffic of the Interstate System in a manner that is conducive to
safety, durability, and economy of maintenance. Safety rest area as
proposed reflects the definition in 23 CFR 752.3(a). That definition in
the FHWA regulations governing landscape and roadside development
refers to a roadside facility safely removed from the traveled way with
parking and such facilities for the motorist deemed necessary for rest,
relaxation, comfort, and information needs. The definition adds that
the term is synonymous with ``rest and recreation areas.''
FHWA requests comments on the proposed definitions. In addition,
FHWA requests comments on additional terms relating to changes in
access to the Interstate System that could benefit from definition in
part 624.
Section 624.7 Interstate System Access Requirements
In Sec. 624.7, FHWA proposes to specify the requirements
applicable to Interstate System access. In Sec. 624.7(a), FHWA
proposes to require that proposed changes in access shall not result in
a significant adverse impact on the Interstate System traffic
operations or the safety for all roadway users in the project's area of
influence, consistent with FHWA's goal of reducing fatal and serious
injury crashes on the entire roadway network. The 2009 Policy stated,
``An operational and safety analysis has concluded that the proposed
change in access does not have a significant adverse impact on the
safety and operation of the Interstate facility (which includes
mainline lanes, existing, new, or modified ramps, ramp intersections
with crossroad) or on the local street network based on both the
current and the planned future traffic projections.'' Since 2009, there
has been confusion regarding the applicability of the ``or'' statement
contained in this sentence in the 2009 Policy and carried forward in
the 2017 policy. Questions have been raised about whether the ``or''
statement applied to the safety analysis, operational analysis, or both
and whether a request for a change in access would be denied because
the operational or safety analysis for either the Interstate System or
the local roads was adversely impacted. To address these questions,
FHWA proposes to clarify in Sec. 624.7(a) that any change in access to
the Interstate System shall not result in a significant adverse impact
on the traffic operations of the Interstate System or the safety for
all roadway users in the project's area of influence. To ensure safety
for all roadway users in the project's area of influence, all users
must be considered when reviewing an access request. To that end, the
existing and projected land use along the crossroad should be examined
and opportunities to improve connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle
travel should be considered as part of the access modification.
FHWA also proposes to ensure that the traffic and safety data used
to
[[Page 64391]]
develop the safety and operational analysis for inclusion in the IJR is
reasonably current. The traffic data available for the analysis is
generally no more than 3 years old since metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO) are required to update their models on a 3-year
cycle. However, to account for the project development process (i.e.,
planning, preliminary design, environmental analysis, final design,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction) and to minimize the need to
revise an analysis that was started at the end of the MPO modeling
cycle, the proposed rule would specify that traffic data used in the
State DOT's analysis may be no more than 5 years old. Where
microsimulation modeling is used for the analysis, even more current
traffic data may be useful.
With multiple operational analysis tools and methodologies
available, FHWA does not require the specific use of any tool.
Regardless of which tool type is selected, it is important to
understand the limitations of the chosen tool(s) and apply the tools in
a manner which supports a verifiable, reproducible, and accurate
analysis. This includes the effective calibration of the chosen tool(s)
and proper interpretation of the output. In addition, it is important
to provide documentation of the operational analysis in the IJR that
gives sufficient information for an independent review of the
conditions and does not require the use of any specific traffic
analysis tool software. FHWA encourages the use of appropriate tools in
a scope commensurate with the project complexity.
For the safety evaluation, an analysis of recent crash data is
useful for determining if the elements under study (freeway through
lanes, interchange ramps, crossroads, and intersections) within the
project area are experiencing more or greater severity of crashes than
what would be considered typical for the conditions relevant to the
facility. This information is helpful for identifying potential factors
contributing to poor safety performance and how those conditions could
be improved as part of the build proposal(s). Crash data more than 5
years old does not provide an accurate assessment of the safety
performance conditions of the facility because there may have been
significant changes in travel patterns and conditions as evidenced by
the need for proposed changes in access. FHWA believes the 5-year
requirement for traffic and safety data proposed in this rule provides
State DOTs with sufficient flexibility that accounts for project
development processes and ensures that the analysis is based on
reasonably current data.
The safety analysis should assess the safety performance of the
overall project (both Interstate and local roads) within the project's
area of influence. The scope of the analysis and the tools and
methodologies used for the assessment should be commensurate with the
scope and complexity of the proposed project. More complex projects
have greater risk for introducing unintended negative safety
consequences and therefore a more robust analysis may be necessary.
The intent of the safety analysis is to guide project design
decisions in an effort to: identify and mitigate any existing safety
risk features that may be contributing to the number and severity of
crashes; implement effective and efficient design choices that reduce
future safety risks; and implement designs consistent with known human
factors design guidance. Safety has traditionally been considered in
highway projects within a standards-based framework. Recent
advancements in the development and use of statistical models within a
data driven safety analysis framework allow for a more thorough
understanding of the quantitative relationship between design features
and safety performance.
With multiple safety analysis tools and methodologies available,
FHWA does not require the specific use of any tool. FHWA encourages the
use of appropriate tools in a scope commensurate with the project
complexity. If applying safety predictive models, it is important that
the analysis consider the boundaries and conditions for which the model
was developed. Not all conditions and scenarios have safety predictive
models available.
The safety analysis should assess safety performance (number and
severity of crashes) under the proposed build and no-build scenarios.
Predictive safety analysis tools may be applied on individual segments
or components of the project, and it may be possible to sum the results
for the entire project. If using predictive safety analysis tools, it
is important to acknowledge the complexities of safety modeling and the
potential variability from actual results.
Instances may arise where the Interstate System could incur
expected or predicted increases to overall crashes, or specific crash
severity types, while the overall project crash impacts are reduced.
FHWA expects agencies to carefully evaluate and discuss the tradeoffs
between increased crashes on one facility versus another and will take
this into account when making the SO&E determination.
In Sec. 624.7(b), FHWA proposes to require that access to the
Interstate System must connect only to a public road, consistent with
FHWA practice since 1990. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Design Standards--
Interstate System has been adopted as the standard for the Interstate
System. See Sec. 625.4(a)(2). Since 1988, this standard has included
the following provision related to access control to the Interstate
System: ``Access is to be achieved by interchanges at select public
roads.'' (AASHTO, A Policy on Design Standards--Interstate System, page
2). Requiring that access points connect to a public road assures that
the access to the Interstate System will not be closed by private
interests and that a public agency has the ability to make necessary
improvements to maintain the safety and traffic operations of the
interchange and the Interstate System. The proposed rule would
specifically prohibit connections directly to private developments,
parking lots, or private roads.
In Sec. 624.7(c), FHWA proposes to prohibit access from outside of
the Interstate System right-of-way to safety rest areas, information
centers, weigh stations, and truck inspection stations located within
the right-of-way. Such prohibition is consistent with FHWA's
implementation of the 2009 Policy as documented in the Interstate
System Access Informational Guide, 2010, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/interstate/pubs/access/access.pdf. Also, as
noted in the AASHTO document, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets, 2018, ``a rest area is not intended to be used for social
or civic gatherings or for such active forms of recreation as boating,
swimming, or organized games.'' (Section 3.6.2, page 3-187). In
addition, the AASHTO document, A Policy on Design Standards--Interstate
System, 2016, states that access to the Interstate System is to be
achieved by interchanges at selected public roads. (AASHTO, A Policy on
Design Standards--Interstate System, page 2). Access to rest areas from
outside the Interstate right-of-way is prohibited to ensure that the
rest area is not used as an interchange to access a local road network,
jeopardizing its intended function of reducing driver fatigue and for
the convenience of highway users. These facilities should only be
accessible to vehicles to and from the Interstate System.
In Sec. 624.7(d), FHWA proposes to require that each interchange
provides for all traffic movements, consistent
[[Page 64392]]
with the Policy since 1990 and the AASHTO document, A Policy on Design
Standards--Interstate System, 2016, which has been adopted as a design
standard. See Sec. 625.4(a)(2). In Sec. 624.7(e), FHWA proposes to
require that the proposed change in access shall be designed to meet
the standards in accordance with part 625 of this title or have
approved exceptions, and shall comply with part 655 of this title,
Traffic Operations, consistent with the Policy since 1990.
In Sec. 624.7(f), FHWA proposes to grant exceptions on a case by
case basis to the requirements in Sec. 624.7(b) through (d) for the
situations referenced in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4). In Sec.
624.7(f)(1), FHWA could grant exceptions for locked gate access to
private property for public safety. Locked gate access is sometimes
necessary for use by maintenance or utility forces in remote areas,
between widely spaced interchanges for emergency management or medical
personnel, hazardous materials response and evacuations at industrial
sites, or for temporary construction access. In Sec. 624.7(f)(2), FHWA
could grant exceptions to allow locked gate access from an information
center, weigh station, and truck inspection station to a local road as
needed for public safety, such as locked gate access from a truck
inspection station to a minor local road to access repair services in a
remote area. In Sec. 624.7(f)(3), FHWA could grant exceptions for
access from a safety rest area to an adjacent, publicly owned
conservation and recreation area if access to this area is available
only through the safety rest area, as provided under 23 CFR 752.5(d).
Section 752.5(d), in FHWA's regulations governing safety rest areas,
allows FHWA to permit access from safety rest areas to adjacent
publicly owned conservation and recreation areas if access to these
areas is only available through the rest area and if these areas or
their usage does not adversely affect the safety rest area facilities.
In proposed Sec. 624.7(f)(4), FHWA could grant exceptions for partial
interchanges where they are necessary to provide special access (e.g.,
to managed lanes or park and ride lots), or where factors such as
social, economic, and environmental impacts of a full interchange
justify the exception.
Section 624.9 Approval Process
Proposed Sec. 624.9(a) sets out the approval process for a change
in access to the Interstate System. In Sec. 624.9(a), FHWA proposes to
require that a State DOT proposing a change in access submit
electronically a request letter and an IJR to FHWA demonstrating that
the proposed change in access meets the requirements of part 624. FHWA
would not accept requests from other parties besides a State DOT. In
Sec. 624.9(b), FHWA proposes that approval of a change in access
requires a SO&E determination and a final approval. The SO&E
determination is separate from the NEPA process and final approval
could not be granted until the NEPA process is complete. In Sec.
624.9(c), FHWA proposes that the SO&E determination shall be based on
the safety, operational, and engineering aspects of the request as
documented in an IJR submitted by the State DOT in accordance with the
requirements of proposed Sec. 624.11. In Sec. 624.9(c), FHWA also
proposes that all SO&E determinations shall be made by FHWA except
where an approved PA is in effect. When an approved PA is in effect,
the State DOT shall make a SO&E determination on behalf of FHWA in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 111(e) and 23 CFR 624.13 for specific types
of Interstate System access.
In Sec. 624.9(d), FHWA proposes that if a favorable SO&E
determination is made, FHWA would consider whether final approval of a
proposed change in access to the Interstate System is appropriate.
Further, FHWA proposes that final approval may only be granted by FHWA
if the following conditions are met: (1) applicable transportation
planning, conformity, congestion management process, and NEPA
procedures have been completed; and (2) the alternative covered by the
favorable SO&E determination is of the same scope and design as the
alternative selected and approved in the NEPA decision. FHWA could not
issue final approval of access until the NEPA procedures have been
completed because the final approval is a major Federal action subject
to NEPA. However, FHWA could make a SO&E determination in advance of
the NEPA decision.
In Sec. 624.9(e), FHWA proposes that if a proposed change in
access to the Interstate System has not progressed to construction
within 5 years of an affirmative SO&E determination, FHWA may require a
State DOT to provide verification that the requirements of Sec. 624.7
continue to be met based on current and projected future conditions.
The 2009 Policy discussed reevaluating a proposal if the project did
not proceed to construction within 8 years. This limit was reduced to 3
years in the 2017 Policy to coincide with the timeframe for written
NEPA re-evaluation for draft and final environmental impact statements
(EIS) pursuant to 23 CFR 771.129(a) and (b). FHWA has determined that
linking these two timeframes is not appropriate because the 3-year NEPA
requirement applies only in situations where an EIS is developed and
not every Interstate access modification request requires an EIS. As
mentioned above, traffic and safety data that is up to 5 years old is
adequate to make SO&E determinations. Therefore, FHWA now proposes to
set the limit for a proposed change in access to progress to
construction without State DOT verification under Sec. 624.7 at 5
years after an affirmative SO&E determination. FHWA selected this
duration because traffic and safety data that is older than 5 years
introduces higher risk in the analysis of SO&E acceptability. The 5
year threshold for proceeding to construction will provide a maximum of
10 years [5 years (project development) + 5 years (verification)] from
the time the traffic data was collected. Within this time period, some
areas could see significant change in travel patterns and conditions,
which may warrant a reconsideration of whether the technical
assumptions that formed the basis of FHWA's prior approval are still
valid. In addition, this timeframe would allow for two Long-Range
Transportation Plan updates for most MPOs. See 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(1).
Section 624.11 Interstate Justification Report
Proposed Sec. 624.11 addresses the IJR. In Sec. 624.11(a), FHWA
proposes to require that the IJR be a standalone report. We expect that
all information necessary to make the SO&E determination would be in
the IJR. Relevant information from other documents must be included in
the IJR, rather than referenced.
In Sec. 624.11(b), FHWA proposes to prescribe the minimum
information that must be included in the IJR, except as provided under
Sec. 624.11(d), so that FHWA can make a determination regarding the
SO&E aspects of the proposed change in access request. These
requirements are consistent with long-standing practice as documented
in the 2010 Interstate System Access Informational Guide.
In Sec. 624.11(b)(1), FHWA proposes to require a proposed project
description and overview along with a location map with applicable
distances to adjacent interchanges.
In Sec. 624.11(b)(2), FHWA proposes to require preliminary design
documents sufficient for FHWA to determine the geometric viability of
the proposed project. Specifically, FHWA proposes to require that the
IJR include, at a
[[Page 64393]]
minimum, the design criteria, existing geometry overlaid with clearly
labeled proposed geometry plan views, lane configuration schematics,
typical sections, control-of-access lines, interchange spacing, ramp
spacing, and other design features necessary to evaluate the proposed
design. The geometric design criteria needed would vary based on the
stage of development and complexity of the proposal.
In Sec. 624.11(b)(3), FHWA proposes requirements for the limits of
the operational and safety analysis for the proposed change in access
included in the IJR. In Sec. 624.11(b)(3)(i) and (ii), FHWA proposes
that the operational and safety analysis must include at least the
first adjacent existing or proposed interchanges and intersections to
evaluate the impacts on the roadway network. A preliminary
understanding of the traffic conditions should be gained prior to
selecting the limits of the network. Based on the complexity of the
proposal, logical traffic breaks should be selected within the system
rather than adhering to only the minimum requirements.
In Sec. 624.11(b)(4), FHWA proposes to require that a conceptual
signing plan showing the type and location of the signs proposed to
support the proposed design be included in the IJR. This plan is
necessary for FHWA to determine if the proposed interchange can be
adequately and clearly signed.
In Sec. 624.11(c), FHWA proposes to specify the additional
information that must be included in the IJR when a proposed change in
access will not provide for all traffic movements at an interchange
(also known as a partial interchange) in accordance with proposed Sec.
624.7(d). In Sec. 624.11(c)(1), FHWA proposes to require that the IJR
must provide a full-interchange option and compare the SO&E to the
proposed partial interchange option. The IJR must justify the necessity
for a partial interchange alternative. In Sec. 624.11(c)(2), FHWA
proposes that the IJR must describe why a partial interchange is
proposed and include the proposed mitigation to compensate for missing
movements, such as wayfinding signage, local intersection improvements,
mitigation of driver expectation leading to wrong-way movements on
ramps, and other proposed strategies as necessary. In Sec.
624.11(c)(3), FHWA proposes that the IJR must discuss if the future
provision of a full interchange will be precluded by the proposed
design.
In Sec. 624.11(d), FHWA proposes to consider the complexity of a
change in access when determining the extent of the safety and
operational analysis and the format of the IJR. Due to the variation in
complexity of projects, coordination between FHWA and a State DOT is
necessary to determine the level of analysis needed based on the
context of a specific project. Projects that include the addition of
left-turn storage lanes, right-turn storage lanes and through lanes
along the crossroad at the terminus of existing ramps are not changes
in access and would not require IJRs. State DOTs are encouraged to
coordinate with FHWA to determine what constitutes a change in access.
Section 624.13 Programmatic Agreement
In Sec. 624.13, FHWA proposes the process a State DOT must use if
they wish to enter into a PA with FHWA that would delegate to the State
DOT responsibility for making SO&E determinations on behalf of FHWA in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 111(e) and section 1318(d) of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). FHWA also proposes
that, if delegated, SO&E determinations must be made in accordance with
the requirements of this part. The process identified in this section
is consistent with the FHWA memorandum, ``Programmatic Agreement for
Processing Interstate Access Requests--Revised'' (PA Memo) dated April
26, 2016, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/interstate/160426.cfm. FHWA intends to update the PA template to incorporate the
regulatory provisions and citations after the final rule is published.
In Sec. 624.13(a), FHWA proposes to specify the types of access
requests that a State DOT, through a PA with FHWA, may assume delegated
authority to make SO&E acceptability determinations on behalf of FHWA.
The State DOT may assume all or any portion of the allowed types of
access requests. The types of access requests, including new freeway-
to-crossroad (service) interchanges, modifications to existing freeway-
to-crossroad (service) interchanges, and completion of basic movements
at freeway-to-crossroad (service) interchanges, are consistent with 23
U.S.C. 111(e).
In Sec. 624.13(b), FHWA proposes to specify the information the
State DOT must provide in the PA request. In Sec. 624.13(b)(1), FHWA
proposes that the State DOT must provide the types of access requests
for which they wish to assume the responsibility of SO&E
determinations. In Sec. 624.13(b)(2), FHWA proposes that the State DOT
must also describe the controls and resources they have available to
effectively implement the PA and address the considerations identified
in proposed Sec. 624.13(c).
In Sec. 624.13(c)(1), FHWA proposes that upon receipt of a State
DOT's request to enter into a PA, FHWA will verify that the State DOT
has developed and implemented appropriate controls and processes, and
that the State DOT has the necessary resources and commits to conduct
future actions in compliance with the requested PA in order to assume
responsibility for SO&E determinations on behalf of FHWA. FHWA also
proposes a list of specific factors that will be considered.
In Sec. 624.13(c)(1)(i), FHWA proposes to examine whether the
State DOT has in place or has modified policies, standard operating
procedures (SOP), and processes that are necessary to implement the PA.
In Sec. 624.13(c)(1)(ii), FHWA proposes to examine whether State DOT
processes and guidance have been developed and implemented to support
the development, analysis, documentation, review, and potential
processing of Interstate System access changes under the terms of the
PA. In Sec. 624.13(c)(1)(iii), FHWA proposes to examine documentation
demonstrating the process, guidance, assistance, and oversight that
State DOTs will provide to support local agencies who may propose
changes in Interstate System access. In Sec. 624.13(c)(1)(iv), FHWA
proposes to examine documentation demonstrating whether the State DOT
has the technical expertise and resources (e.g., training, analysis
tools) for State DOT staff to analyze, review, and process proposed
changes in Interstate System access under the terms of the PA. In Sec.
624.13(c)(1)(v), FHWA proposes to examine documentation demonstrating
whether the State DOT has procedures in place governing oversight,
monitoring, and annual reporting to FHWA to ensure that changes in
access to the Interstate System are processed in a manner that is
consistent with the terms of the PA. In Sec. 624.13(c)(1)(vi), FHWA
proposes that any other factors deemed necessary by the Secretary will
be examined.
In Sec. 624.13(c)(2), FHWA proposes to establish, with input from
the State DOT, the scope and conditions for the State DOT's review of
access requests and the process by which the State DOT will make the
SO&E determination.
In Sec. 624.13(d), FHWA proposes that the PA will require that the
State DOT submit electronically an annual report to FHWA that at a
minimum summarizes specific information about SO&E determinations under
the PA. In Sec. 624.13(d)(1), FHWA proposes to require a State DOT to
submit a list of all the SO&E determinations made in
[[Page 64394]]
the previous calendar year. In Sec. 624.13(d)(2), FHWA proposes to
require a State DOT to submit a summary of anticipated changes in
access to be evaluated under the PA in the coming calendar year. In
Sec. 624.13(d)(3), FHWA proposes to require that the report assess the
effectiveness and verify that all changes in access to the Interstate
System processed through the PA were evaluated and processed consistent
with the terms of the PA. In Sec. 624.13(d)(4), FHWA proposes to
require that the report identify any areas where improvements are
needed and what actions the State DOT is taking to implement those
improvements. In Sec. 624.13(d)(5), FHWA proposes that the report will
include actions taken by the State DOT as part of its quality control
efforts.
In Sec. 624.13(e), FHWA proposes that once all concerns have been
addressed to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the PA may be executed.
FHWA requests comments on the proposed rule. Please follow the
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice to submit
comments. Additional information about commenting is available under
``Electronic Access and Filing'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Rulemaking
Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rulemaking a significant action under section 3(f) of Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. This proposed rule
would codify existing policy, processes and procedures relating to new
or modified access to the Interstate System. In addition, this proposed
rule complies with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 to improve regulation.
This proposed rule is not anticipated to adversely affect, in any
material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, this proposed
rule would not create a serious inconsistency with any action taken or
planned by another agency or materially alter the budgetary impact of
any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. This proposed
rule also does not raise any novel legal or policy issues. FHWA
anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be
minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354;
5 U.S.C. 60l-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule
on small entities, such as local governments and businesses. Based on
the evaluation, FHWA anticipates that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would codify the processes that are currently in-use
by State DOTs when changes in access to the Interstate System are
sought, and States are not included in the definition of small entity
set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. FHWA believes the projected impact upon
small entities that utilize Federal-aid highway program funding for the
development of highway improvement projects on the National Highway
System would be negligible. Therefore, FHWA certifies that the proposed
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
FHWA has determined that this NPRM would not impose unfunded
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) (UMRA). This proposed rule would not result in
the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any one
year (when adjusted for inflation). Further, in compliance with the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action
that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess
the effects on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private
sector. In addition, the definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type
in which State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust
their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in
the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program
permits this type of flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined
that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State
law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge
traditional State governmental functions.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal Agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. Federal agencies must obtain OMB approval for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations, among others. This proposed rule would have new collection
of information requirements that would require the submittal of two
reports that State DOTs have submitted to FHWA for years under existing
policy: the IJR and the PA annual report. The IJR provides the
justification and documentation necessary to substantiate any proposed
change in access to the Interstate System and facilitates FHWA's
decisionmaking giving consideration to the SO&E aspects of the proposed
change. The PA annual report was established under PA procedures to
track IJRs that have received SO&E determinations and the processes
used to make those determinations under the PA. Accordingly, FHWA has
forwarded an Information Collection Request (ICR) for the proposed new
collection of information described below to the OMB for review and
comment. The ICR describes the nature of the collection of information
and its expected burden.
In compliance with the PRA, FHWA also requests comments on the
proposed new collection of information:
Title: Interstate System Access--Reports.
Type of Request: New collection.
OMB Control Number: 2125--New.
Form Number: The collection of information would not use any
standard forms.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information: The proposed regulations
in Sec. Sec. 624.11 and 624.13(d), respectively, would require State
DOTs to submit two reports; the IJR and the PA annual report. The IJR
has been submitted under existing policy since 1990, 55 FR 42670
(October 22, 1990). It provides the justification and documentation
necessary to substantiate any proposed changes in access to the
Interstate System and facilitates FHWA's decisionmaking, giving
consideration to the SO&E aspects of the proposed change. The IJR must
include a description and overview of the proposed change, preliminary
design
[[Page 64395]]
documents, operational and safety analyses evaluating the impact on the
Interstate System and local road network, and a conceptual plan showing
the type and location of proposed signs. The IJR for a proposed partial
interchange must include additional information. The PA annual report
has been submitted since 2013, when PA procedures were first
established, to track IJRs that have received SO&E determinations and
the processes used to make those determinations under the PA. Under
proposed Sec. 624.13(d), a PA must require that the State DOT
electronically submit an annual report to FHWA summarizing its
performance under the PA.
Description of the Need for the Information: As discussed under the
``Background and Legal Authority'' heading of this preamble, FHWA is
authorized to approve any points of access to, or exit from, the
Interstate System for those routes for which Federal-aid highway funds
or other funds administered under Title 23 have been used in the past
or will be used to develop a project, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 111.
Additional authority is found in section 1318(d) of MAP-21, and 23
U.S.C. 111(e). Full control of access along the Interstate mainline and
ramps, along with control of access on the crossroad at interchanges,
is critical to ensuring that the Interstate System provides the highest
level of service in terms of safety and mobility. Collecting
information in the form of an IJR allows FHWA to adequately review
proposed changes in access to the Interstate System and determine the
safety and mobility impacts prior to making a decision of acceptability
of a proposed construction project. In addition, information collected
in the IJRs is streamlined to remove duplication amongst other programs
within FHWA and reduce administrative burdens to State DOTs.
The proposed requirements for the submission of IJRs and PA annual
reports to FHWA align with the DOT priority of Safety.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Use of the Information: FHWA's decision to approve change
in access points to the Interstate System must be supported by
technical information indicating that the proposed change in access
will not have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation
of the Interstate facility. FHWA is proposing to require in 23 CFR
624.9(a) that when a State DOT requests a change in access, such
technical information be submitted to FHWA in the form of an IJR that
meets the requirements of proposed 23 CFR 624.11, together with a
letter requesting the change in access. FHWA staff in the division
office (field) will review the IJR to determine whether the request is
consistent with FHWA policy and applicable requirements and whether to
recommend concurrence. The IJR may be shared with staff in FHWA's
Resource Center and Headquarters for technical assistance, depending on
the complexity of the analysis where supplemental technical expertise
is needed. For changes in access that require FHWA Headquarters
concurrence, such as system interchanges (freeway-to-freeway) or
partial interchanges the IJR is transmitted to FHWA Headquarters,
Office of Infrastructure, to make the determination on the IJR.
A State DOT has the option of entering into a PA with FHWA to make
SO&E determinations on IJRs. If a State DOT has an approved PA then
they are required to submit a PA annual report, which is used to
monitor the performance of the PA. FHWA staff in the field will review
the annual report as part of their oversight of the PA process.
Description of the Respondents (Including Estimated Number and
Proposed Frequency of Responses to the Collection of Information): The
respondents are 52 State DOTs. State DOTs will only submit IJRs if they
are requesting Interstate System access. The IJRs are submitted based
on need; as a result, there is no expectation that all respondents will
submit IJRs annually. Based on historical data, a maximum of 30 annual
responses are expected with this collection. The PA annual reports are
submitted from State DOTs that have an approved PA with FHWA. It is
estimated that five PA annual reports will be submitted yearly with
this collection.
Estimate of the Total Response Burden Resulting from the Collection
of Information: FHWA estimates the total burden for IJR collections to
be approximately 3,900 hours and $214,500 annually for State DOTs. It
is estimated that the total burden for IJR reviews will be
approximately 990 hours and $65,340 annually for FHWA.
FHWA estimates the total burden for the PA annual reports
collection to be approximately 50 hours and $2,750 annually for State
DOTs. It is estimated that the total burden for reviews of the PA
annual reports collection will be approximately 10 hours and $660
annually for FHWA.
Public Comments Requested: FHWA requests comments on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) whether the proposed
collection is necessary for FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burdens; (3) ways for FHWA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that
the burden could be minimized, including through the use of electronic
technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information.
FHWA will summarize and/or include comments on these points in the
request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
National Environmental Policy Act
FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and has determined that it qualifies for a
categorical exclusion (CE) under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies
to the promulgation of regulations, and that no unusual circumstances
are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). Categorically excluded actions
meet the criteria for CEs under the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations and under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any
further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This proposed rule would not affect the
NEPA process for Interstate access requests, and if it is promulgated
as proposed, FHWA would not grant a project final approval until the
NEPA process was completed.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13175 and believes
that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
Tribal governments, and would not preempt Tribal law. This proposed
rule would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian
Tribal governments nor would it have any economic or other impacts on
the viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, the funding and consultation
requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply and a Tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. FHWA has
determined that
[[Page 64396]]
this proposed rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.
Regulation Identifier Number
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year.
The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to
cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 624
Interstate access process, Interstate Justification Report,
Programmatic Agreement.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.85.
Shailen P. Bhatt,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to amend title 23 of
the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 624 as follows:
PART 624--INTERSTATE SYSTEM ACCESS
Sec.
624.1 Purpose.
624.3 Applicability.
624.5 Definitions.
624.7 Interstate System access requirements.
624.9 Approval process.
624.11 Interstate Justification Report.
624.13 Programmatic agreement.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(a) and (b) and 111; 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR
1.85.
Sec. 624.1 Purpose.
To prescribe requirements and procedures for State requests for and
FHWA consideration of changes in access to the Interstate System.
Sec. 624.3 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and (c) of this section,
this part is applicable to all segments designated as part of the
Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
(Interstate System) for which Federal-aid highway funds or other funds
administered under title 23 have been used in the past or are used to
develop a project.
(b) This part is not applicable to ramps providing access to safety
rest areas, information centers, weigh stations, and truck inspection
stations located within the Interstate right-of-way when such areas are
accessible to vehicles only to and from the Interstate System.
Connections from other public facilities to facilities within the
Interstate System right-of way, if an exception is granted in
accordance with Sec. 624.7(f), are subject to the requirements of this
part.
(c) This part is not applicable to connections between managed
lanes and general-purpose lanes on the same Interstate highway.
Sec. 624.5 Definitions.
The following terms used in this part are defined as follows:
Access point. Any permanent connection (including those metered or
closed at times) to the through lanes or shoulders, collector-
distributor roads, or ramps on the Interstate System, including
``locked gate access''.
Area of influence. The geographic extent to which a proposed change
in access will affect traffic operations and safety.
Change in access. The addition of a new, or modification of an
existing, interchange or access point along the Interstate System.
Interchange. A system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction
with one or more grade separations that provides for the movement of
traffic between two or more roadways or highways on different levels.
Interstate Justification Report (IJR). A technical report that
documents the safety, operations, and engineering aspects of a proposed
change in access to the Interstate System and demonstrates that the
proposal meets the provisions of this part.
Interstate System. The term ``Interstate System'' as defined in 23
U.S.C. 101, and includes mainline lanes; shoulders; existing, new, or
modified ramps; collector-distributor roads; and ramp termini. For
purposes of this part, the Interstate System shall be limited to those
routes for which Federal-aid highway funds or other funds administered
under title 23 have been used in the past or will be used to develop a
project.
Partial interchange. An interchange that does not provide for each
of the eight basic movements (or four basic movements in the case of a
three-legged interchange).
Programmatic agreement (PA). Agreement between FHWA and a State
department of transportation (DOT) under 23 U.S.C. 111(e) to allow a
State to review and make the Safety, Operations, and Engineering (SO&E)
determination.
Public road. The term ``public road'' as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101.
Safety, Operations, and Engineering (SO&E) determination. Technical
determination of whether the proposed location, configuration,
geometric design, and signing related to the proposed change in access
may be reasonably expected to serve the anticipated traffic of the
Interstate System in a manner that is conducive to safety, durability,
and economy of maintenance.
Safety rest area. The term ``safety rest area'' as defined in Sec.
752.3(a) of this chapter.
Sec. 624.7 Interstate System access requirements.
(a) The proposed change in access to the Interstate System shall
not result in a significant adverse impact on the Interstate System
traffic operations or the safety for all roadway users in the project's
area of influence, as demonstrated by operational and safety analyses
based on both the current and future traffic projections using traffic
and safety data that is no more than 5 years old.
(b) Interstate System access points shall connect only to a public
road. Connections directly to private developments, parking lots, or
private roads are prohibited.
(c) Connections from outside of the Interstate System right-of-way
to safety rest areas, information centers, weigh stations, and truck
inspection stations located within the Interstate System right-of-way
are prohibited.
(d) Each interchange shall provide for all traffic movements.
(e) A proposed change in access shall be designed to meet the
standards in accordance with part 625 of this chapter or have approved
exceptions and shall comply with part 655 of this chapter.
(f) On a case by case basis, FHWA may grant exceptions to the
requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section for:
(1) Locked gate access to private property for purposes of public
safety;
(2) Locked gate access from an information center, weigh station,
and truck inspection station to a local road for the purposes of public
safety;
(3) Access from a safety rest area to an adjacent publicly owned
conservation and recreation area if access to this area is available
only through the safety rest area as allowed under Sec. 752.5(d) of
this chapter; or
(4) A partial interchange where necessary to provide special
access, such as to managed lanes or park and ride lots, or where
factors such as the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a
full interchange justify an exception.
Sec. 624.9 Approval process.
(a) To propose a change in access to the Interstate System, the
State DOT
[[Page 64397]]
shall submit electronically to FHWA a request letter and an IJR
complying with Sec. 624.11 demonstrating that the proposed change in
access meets the requirements of this part. Change in access requests
will not be accepted from other parties besides a State DOT.
(b) Approval of a change in access to the Interstate System
requires a SO&E determination and a final approval.
(c) The SO&E determination shall be based on the safety,
operations, and engineering aspects of the request as documented in an
IJR meeting the requirements of this part. FHWA shall make the SO&E
determination, except where FHWA has delegated to a State DOT the
authority to make the SO&E determination on behalf of FHWA by entering
into a programmatic agreement that meets the requirements of Sec.
624.13.
(d) If a favorable SO&E determination is made, FHWA will consider
whether final approval is appropriate for the proposed change in access
to the Interstate System. Final approval may only be granted by FHWA
and constitutes a major Federal action under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Final approval may be granted if the following
conditions are met:
(1) Applicable transportation planning, conformity, congestion
management process, and NEPA procedures have been completed.
(2) The alternative covered by the favorable SO&E determination is
of the same scope and design as the alternative selected and approved
in the NEPA decision.
(e) If the project has not progressed to construction within 5
years of receiving an affirmative SO&E determination, FHWA may require
the State DOT to provide verification that the requirements of Sec.
624.7 continue to be met based on current and projected future
conditions.
Sec. 624.11 Interstate Justification Report.
(a) The IJR shall be a standalone report. Relevant information from
other documents (such as feasibility studies, NEPA documents or
preliminary engineering reports) must be included in the appropriate
section of the IJR.
(b) At a minimum, an IJR submitted to FHWA shall include all of the
following, except as provided under paragraph (d) of this section.
(1) A description and overview of the proposed change in access
including a project location map and distances to adjacent
interchanges.
(2) Preliminary design documents sufficient to demonstrate the
geometric viability of the proposal. The design documents shall include
the design criteria, existing geometry overlaid with clearly labeled
proposed geometric plan views, lane configuration schematics, typical
sections, control-of-access lines, interchange spacing, ramp spacing,
and other design features necessary to evaluate the proposed design.
(3) Operational and safety analyses that evaluate the impact of the
proposed change in access on the Interstate System and local road
network extending to the following area of influence limits at a
minimum:
(i) Along the Interstate System, and interchanging freeway if
applicable, to the adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either
side of the proposed change in access, extending further as needed to
ensure the limits of the analysis are appropriate to fully understand
the impact of the proposed change in access on the Interstate System.
(ii) Along each crossroad to the first major intersection on either
side of the proposed change in access, extending further as needed to
demonstrate the safety and operational impacts that the proposed change
in access and other transportation improvements may have on the local
road network.
(4) A conceptual plan showing the type and location of the signs
proposed to support the proposed design.
(c) The IJR for a proposed partial interchange shall meet the
following additional requirements.
(1) The IJR shall include a full-interchange option with a
comparison of the operational and safety analyses to the partial
interchange option. The IJR shall justify the necessity for a partial
interchange alternative.
(2) The IJR shall describe why a partial interchange is proposed
and include the mitigation proposed to compensate for the missing basic
movements, including wayfinding signage, local intersection
improvements, mitigation of driver expectation leading to wrong-way
movements on ramps, and other proposed strategies as necessary.
(3) The IJR shall describe whether future provision of a full
interchange is precluded by the proposed design.
(d) FHWA will consider the complexity of a change in access when
determining the extent of the safety and operational analysis and the
format of the IJR.
Sec. 624.13 Programmatic agreement.
A State DOT may submit to FHWA a written request to enter into a
programmatic agreement (PA) with FHWA that delegates to the State DOT
the authority to make the SO&E determination on behalf of FHWA in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 111(e) and the requirements of this part.
(a) A PA may allow a State DOT to make the SO&E determination for
all or any part of the following types of change in access requests:
(1) New freeway-to-crossroad (service) interchanges;
(2) Modifications to existing freeway-to-crossroad (service)
interchanges; and
(3) Completion of basic movements at freeway-to-crossroad (service)
interchanges.
(b) The State DOT request to enter into a PA with FHWA shall
include:
(1) The types of changes in access listed in paragraph (a) of this
section for which the State DOT would like to make SO&E determinations;
and
(2) A discussion of controls the State DOT has implemented,
resources available, and actions that would be taken if the PA is
approved, as needed to address the considerations outlined in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(c) Upon receipt of the request, FHWA will:
(1) Verify that appropriate controls and processes have been
developed and implemented by the State DOT, and that the State DOT has
the necessary resources and commits to conduct future actions in
compliance with the terms of the requested PA. FHWA will examine:
(i) State DOT policies, standard operating procedures, and
processes, either in place or modified as needed to carry out the
requirements of the PA;
(ii) Documentation demonstrating the processes and guidance that
have been developed and implemented to support the development,
analysis, documentation, review, and potential processing of each type
of proposed change in access to the Interstate System to which the
terms of the PA would apply;
(iii) Documentation demonstrating the process, guidance,
assistance, and oversight the State DOT will provide to support local
agencies (e.g., cities, counties, toll authorities, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs)) that may propose or submit requests to
the State DOT for changes in access to the Interstate System to which
the terms of the PA would apply;
(iv) Documentation demonstrating that the State DOT has the
expertise and resources (e.g., training, analysis tools) needed to
carry out the requirements of the PA;
(v) Documentation of State DOT procedures to provide the necessary
oversight, monitoring and annual reporting to the FHWA to ensure the
changes in access to the Interstate
[[Page 64398]]
System are processed consistent with the terms of the PA; and
(vi) Any other factors deemed necessary by the Secretary.
(2) Establish, with input from the State DOT, the scope and
conditions for the State DOT's review of change in access requests and
the process by which the State DOT will make the SO&E determination.
(d) A PA shall require that the State DOT submit electronically an
annual report to FHWA summarizing its performance under the PA. The
report shall, at a minimum:
(1) Include the results of all changes in access to the Interstate
System that were processed and received a SO&E determination under the
terms of the PA for the previous calendar year;
(2) Summarize the changes in access to the Interstate System that
the State DOT plans to process in the coming calendar year;
(3) Assess the effectiveness of and verify that all changes in
access to the Interstate System processed through this agreement were
evaluated and processed in a manner consistent with the terms of this
PA;
(4) Identify any areas where improvements are needed and what
actions the State DOT is taking to implement those improvements; and
(5) Include actions taken by the State DOT as part of its quality
control efforts.
(e) When all concerns have been addressed to the satisfaction of
the Secretary, the PA may be executed.
[FR Doc. 2023-20218 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P