Rule2021-28236
Design Standards for Highways
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 3, 2022
Effective
February 2, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Highway Administration
Abstract
FHWA amends its regulations governing design standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the National Highway System (NHS). In issuing this final rule, FHWA will allow State departments of transportation (State DOT) to adopt procedures or design criteria, as approved by FHWA, that enable the State to undertake resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on freeways, including Interstate highways, without utilizing design exceptions as long as the RRR procedures or criteria are met. In addition, FHWA incorporates by reference the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference and removes from its regulations the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32-42]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28236]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 625
[Docket No. FHWA-2019-0030]
RIN 2125-AF88
Design Standards for Highways
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
[[Page 33]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FHWA amends its regulations governing design standards and
standard specifications applicable to new construction, reconstruction,
resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and
rehabilitation projects on the National Highway System (NHS). In
issuing this final rule, FHWA will allow State departments of
transportation (State DOT) to adopt procedures or design criteria, as
approved by FHWA, that enable the State to undertake resurfacing,
restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on freeways, including
Interstate highways, without utilizing design exceptions as long as the
RRR procedures or criteria are met. In addition, FHWA incorporates by
reference the latest versions of design standards and standard
specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference and
removes from its regulations the corresponding outdated or superseded
versions of these standards and specifications.
DATES: This final rule is effective February 2, 2022. Use of the
updated standards is required for all NHS projects authorized to
proceed with design activities on or after February 2, 2023, unless an
extension is granted for unique or extenuating circumstances.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of February 2, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain other
publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of December 3, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Hilton, Office of
Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements (HICP-10), (202) 924-8618,
or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81c4ede8fbe0e3e4f5e9afc9e8edf5eeefc1e5eef5afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="56133a3f2c373433223e781e3f3a2239381632392278313920">[email protected]</span></a>, or Mr. Lev Gabrilovich,
Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-3813, or via email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b072e3d650c2a29392227243d2228230b2f243f652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6aa8390c8a18784948f8a89908f858ea6828992c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
est., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document, as well as the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
and all comments received, may be viewed online through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> using the docket number
listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are also
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. An electronic copy of this document
may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's
website at <a href="http://www.FederalRegister.gov">www.FederalRegister.gov</a> and the Government Publishing
Office's website at <a href="http://www.GovInfo.gov">www.GovInfo.gov</a>.
Background and Legal Authority
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 315 and under the authority delegated to FHWA
in 49 CFR 1.85, FHWA is updating its existing regulations governing
design standards for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing
(except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation
projects on the NHS (including the Interstate System). This rulemaking
is not expressly required by statute. However, this rulemaking is
necessary to implement provisions of 23 U.S.C. 109 regarding design
standards and criteria.
State DOTs are tasked with preserving the safety and usability of a
vast network of existing highways. Past FHWA design standards required
State DOTs to meet new construction standards on freeway RRR projects
unless a design exception was approved. Recent national research has
provided a better understanding of the relationship between geometric
design features and crash frequency and severity. Therefore, to improve
the efficiency of developing RRR projects on existing freeways, this
final rule allows State DOTs to adopt procedures or design criteria, as
approved by FHWA, that enable the State to undertake RRR projects on
freeways, including Interstate highways, without utilizing design
exceptions as long as the RRR procedures or criteria are met. This
final rule also incorporates by reference updated versions of design
standards and standard specifications previously adopted and
incorporated by reference under 23 CFR 625.4 and removes the
corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and
specifications from the regulations.
Several of these design standards and standard specifications were
established by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Welding Society
(AWS) and were previously adopted by FHWA through rulemaking. 83 FR
54876 (November 1, 2018). The new standards or specifications replace
the previous versions of these standards or specifications and
represent recent refinements that professional organizations have
formally accepted. In this final rule, FHWA formally adopts them as
standards for NHS projects.
The revisions include adopting the 2018 edition of the AASHTO A
Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets (Green Book); the AWS
D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel; the 2018 Interim
Revisions to the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications; the 2019 and 2020 Interim
Revisions to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports
for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals; and the 2019 and
2020 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. FHWA
removes the incorporation by reference of the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing and the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:
2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code.
The adopted standards and specifications apply to all projects on
the NHS (including the Interstate System). FHWA encourages the use of
flexibility and a context-sensitive approach to consider a full range
of project and user needs and the impacts to the community and natural
and human environment. These design standards provide a range of
acceptable values for highway features, allowing for flexibility that
best suits the desires of the community while satisfying the purpose
for the project and needs of its users.
State DOTs and local agencies should select design values based on
factors including the context of the facility, needs of all project
users, safety, mobility, human and natural environmental impacts, and
project costs. For most situations, there is sufficient flexibility
within the range of acceptable values to achieve a balanced design.
However, when this is not possible, a design exception may be
appropriate. Since 1985, FHWA has designated the criteria that have the
most impact on roadway safety and operations as ``controlling
criteria.'' 81 FR 27187 (May 5, 2016). State and local agencies may
consider designs that deviate from the design standards when warranted
based on the conditions, context, and consequences of the proposed
projects. FHWA encourages State DOTs and local agencies to document
design decisionmaking, particularly when standards cannot be met.
Additional information on FHWA's adopted design standards and design
exceptions is available at: <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards">http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards</a>.
Statement of the Problem, Regulatory History and Next Steps
FHWA published a NPRM on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 74934), seeking
public comment on proposed
[[Page 34]]
revisions to its regulations at 23 CFR part 625 governing design
standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction,
reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing),
restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS. Older versions of
documents incorporated by reference needed to be updated, and more
efficient procedures for the development of RRR projects on existing
freeways are needed. FHWA also requested public comments and data on a
draft economic analysis summarized in the preamble to the proposed
rule. FHWA received 18 public comment submissions but no data related
to the economic analysis. Commenters included several State DOTs,
industry associations, associations of State and local officials, and
individuals. After carefully considering the comments received in
response to the NPRM, FHWA is promulgating final regulations with minor
changes from the proposed regulatory text based on the comments
received.
While FHWA is promulgating these final regulations, FHWA plans to
consider additional updates to its design standards and standard
specifications in order to ensure that these regulations reflect
current best practices for new construction, reconstruction,
resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects on different
types of streets and roads on the NHS. For example, FHWA is considering
whether additional documents should be incorporated by reference and
whether the design standards should be revised to better facilitate the
context-sensitive design of streets that safely serve all users. FHWA
anticipates publishing a Notice and Request for Information to solicit
public input on a range of questions related to making further changes
to the Design Standards regulations at 23 CFR part 625.
Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51
The documents that FHWA is incorporating by reference are
reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs and
local agencies carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. These
documents represent recent refinements that professional organizations
have formally accepted. The documents are also available for review at
FHWA Headquarters (HQ) or may be obtained from AASHTO or AWS. The
specific standards and specifications are summarized in this section of
the preamble.
AASHTO GDHS-7, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
7th Edition, 2018
This document, commonly called the ``Green Book'', contains the
current design research and practices for highway and street geometric
design. This edition presents an updated framework for geometric design
that is more flexible, multimodal, and performance-based than in the
past. The document provides guidance to engineers and designers who
strive to develop unique design solutions that meet the needs of all
highway and street users on a project-by-project basis. The 2018
edition of the Green Book incorporates the latest research and current
industry practices and is primarily applicable to new construction and
reconstruction projects.
AASHTO LRFDMOV-2-I7 Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2018
Interim Revisions for 2007 2nd Edition, Copyright 2017
This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Movable
Highway Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition (2007), which
provides the specifications for the design of bascule span, swing span,
and vertical lift bridges. The Interim Revisions contain changes to the
provisions relating to span locks contained in Section 2: Structural
Design, parts 2.4.1.2.5 and C2.4.1.2.5, and Section 6: Mechanical
Design, parts 6.8.1.5.1 and C6.8.1.5.1.
AASHTO LTS-6-I2-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to (2013 Sixth Edition)
Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2018
This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, Sixth Edition (2013), which provides the
specifications for the design of structural supports for highway signs,
luminaires, and traffic signals. The Interim Revisions contain changes
to Section 5: Steel Design regarding unreinforced holes and cutouts
(part 5.14.6.1), reinforced holes and cutouts (part 5.14.6.2), as well
as mast-arm-to-pole connections (parts 5.14.7 and C5.14.7). It also
contains changes to Section 11: Fatigue Design regarding stress range
(part 11.9.2).
AASHTO LTS-6-I3, 2020 Interim Revisions to (2013 Sixth Edition)
Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2019
This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, Sixth Edition (2013). The Interim Revisions
contain changes to the weld inspection provisions contained in Section
5: Steel Design, parts 5.15.5 and C5.15.5.
AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I3-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to (2015 First Edition)
LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2018
This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals which provides the specifications for the design of
structural supports for highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals
using Load and Resistance Factor Design. The Interim Revisions contain
changes to the provisions contained in Section 5: Steel Design
regarding unreinforced and reinforced holes and cutouts (part 5.6.6.1)
and mast-arm-to-pole connections (part 5.6.7). It also contains changes
to Section 11: Fatigue Design regarding stress range (part 11.9.2).
AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I4, 2020 Interim Revisions to (2015 First Edition)
LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2019
This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals. The Interim Revisions contain changes to the
discussion of ice loads presented in part C3.7 of Section 3: Loads. It
also contains changes to the weld inspection provisions contained in
Section 14: Fabrication, Materials and Detailing, parts 14.4.4.8 and
C14.4.4.8.
AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel, 23rd Edition,
Copyright 2015, Including Errata March 2016 (Second Printing)
This code contains the requirements for fabricating and erecting
welded steel structures. The code includes basic information on the
scope and limitations of the code, key definitions, and the major
responsibilities of the parties involved with steel fabrication. It
includes requirements for the design of
[[Page 35]]
welded connections composed of tubular, or nontubular, product form
members. It contains the performance qualification tests required to be
passed by all welding personnel (welders, welding operators, and tack
welders) to perform welding in accordance with this code. It also
includes general fabrication and erection requirements applicable to
welded steel structures governed by this code, including the
requirements for base metals, welding consumables, welding technique,
welded details, material preparation and assembly, workmanship, weld
repair, and requirements for the welding of studs to structural steel.
It contains criteria for the qualifications and responsibilities of
inspectors, acceptance criteria for production welds, and standard
procedures for performing visual inspection and nondestructive testing
(NDT). It also includes basic information pertinent to the welded
modification or repair of existing steel structures.
AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code, 7th Edition,
Amendment: December 12, 2016
This code covers welding fabrication requirements applicable to
welded steel highway bridges. The code is applicable to both shop and
field fabrication of steel bridges and bridge components. The code is
to be used in conjunction with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications.
Section-by-Section Discussion of Changes to 23 CFR Part 625
This section of the preamble discusses the changes to 23 CFR part
625 that FHWA is making in this final rule. For each section, FHWA
describes the final rule, explains how, if at all, it differs from the
proposed change described in the NPRM, and states the reasons for any
changes from the proposal.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text contained in the
November 24, 2020, NPRM, FHWA is revising 23 CFR 625.2(b), 625.3(a)(1),
and 625.4(a)(3) to allow States to adopt procedures or design criteria,
as approved by FHWA, that would enable the State to undertake RRR work
on all NHS roadways without utilizing design exceptions as long as the
RRR procedures or criteria are met. Under 23 U.S.C. 109(a), the
Secretary must ensure proposed highway projects are designed and
constructed in accordance with criteria best suited to serve adequately
the existing and planned future traffic of the highway in a manner that
is conducive to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance.
National research, such as that incorporated in the AASHTO Highway
Safety Manual (<a href="http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org">www.highwaysafetymanual.org</a>), has provided a better
understanding of the relationship between geometric design features and
crash frequency and severity. As a result, the practice of roadway
design is changing to a more performance-based, flexible approach,
particularly for RRR projects. This performance-based approach has been
advanced under several research projects conducted by the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) as documented in NCHRP
Report 839: A Performance-Based Highway Geometric Design Process
(<a href="http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/175375.aspx">http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/175375.aspx</a>), NCHRP Report 785:
Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
(<a href="http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171431.aspx">http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171431.aspx</a>), and NCHRP Report
876: Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into
Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects (<a href="http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/177914.aspx">http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/177914.aspx</a>). Rather than focusing solely on
meeting dimensional design criteria, RRR projects can be developed
based on project-specific conditions and existing and expected future
roadway performance. State DOTs can make the best use of limited
resources by developing RRR projects on all classes of roadways,
including freeways, to maximize the safety and operational benefit of
the overall transportation network.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is revising
Sec. 625.3(a)(1) in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1), as amended by
section 1404(a) of the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94).\1\ Revisions to Sec. 625.3(a)(1) include
changing the factors to be considered by design and construction
standards for highways on the NHS from optional to mandatory
consideration, and the addition of a new factor to consider--the cost
savings that can be achieved by utilizing flexibility that exists in
current design guidance and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1), design and construction standards
for highways on the NHS shall consider the constructed and natural
environment of the area; the environmental, scenic, aesthetic,
historic, community, and preservation impacts of the activity; cost
savings by utilizing flexibility that exists in current design
guidance and regulations; and access for other modes of
transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is adding new
paragraph (a)(3) to Sec. 625.3 to incorporate a long-standing
exception to the Interstate design standards for Alaska and Puerto
Rico, found in 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(1)(B)(ii).
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is adding new
paragraph (a)(4) to Sec. 625.3 to incorporate the provisions of FAST
Act section 1404(b) that allow, if certain conditions are met, a local
jurisdiction that is a direct recipient of Federal funds to design a
project using a roadway design publication that is different from the
roadway design publication used by the State in which the local
jurisdiction resides. One of the statutory requirements is that the
roadway design publication must be recognized by FHWA. For the purpose
of implementing section 1404(b), the design publications that FHWA
currently recognizes are those listed in either the FHWA Memorandum
dated August 20, 2013, regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design
Flexibility (available at <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility.cfm">www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility.cfm</a>) or the related
Questions and Answers (Q&As) (available at <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility_qa.cfm">www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility_qa.cfm</a>).
Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made to add ``to
use'', which was inadvertently omitted from the proposed regulatory
text in 23 CFR 625.3(f)(2). FHWA establishes, in paragraph (f)(2) as
redesignated, a process allowing a programmatic exception for the
limited purpose of allowing States to use a more recent edition of a
standard or specification adopted in Sec. 625.4(d). A programmatic
exception, if approved by FHWA, would enable a State to adopt a more
recent refinement to a standard or specification than FHWA has
incorporated by reference in its regulations. FHWA retains approval for
such a programmatic exception at the appropriate HQs program office to
ensure that the Agency is satisfied that interim implementation of a
new edition is in the public interest. In addition, consistent with the
proposed regulatory text, FHWA is revising Sec. 625.3(f)(1)(i), as
redesignated, to clarify that the provisions governing project
exceptions only apply to projects on the NHS because States may develop
their own standards for projects not on the NHS under Sec. 625.3(a)(2)
and 23 U.S.C. 109(o).
As discussed below, in Sec. 625.4, FHWA is incorporating by
reference the updated versions of design standards and standard
specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference, and
removing the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of
[[Page 36]]
these standards and specifications. In addition, FHWA is removing one
previously adopted specification and adding one new specification.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec. 625.4(a)(1),
FHWA is removing the edition and date from the AASHTO A Policy on
Geometric Design Highways and Streets because the edition and date are
more properly included in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec. 625.4(a)(3),
FHWA is focusing on statewide procedures and design criteria because
under risk-based stewardship and oversight, design plans for individual
RRR projects are typically delegated to the State. In addition, FHWA
clarifies that consistent with current practice, if a State does not
adopt design procedures or criteria for RRR projects as approved by
FHWA, the geometric standards listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall
apply.
Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made based on comments
received pertaining to Sec. 625.4(b)(6). For consistency with other
citations in this section, FHWA is inserting ``AWS'' in front of the
name of the referenced document and removing the edition and date
because they are more properly included in referenced paragraph (d) of
this section.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec. 625.4(b)(7),
FHWA is inserting ``AASHTO'' in front of the name of the two documents
incorporated by reference for clarity.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec. 625.4(b)(9)
and Sec. 625.4(d)(2)(i), FHWA is incorporating a new reference to the
AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel because many
projects require welding of miscellaneous metal components for items
such as light poles, sign supports, and railings. FHWA adopts minimum
design standards to ensure the safety of the transportation
infrastructure by ensuring all fabrication and manufacturing processes
are performed to an acceptable standard. For instance, the AASHTO/AWS
D1.5/D1.5M Bridge Welding Code is a minimum standard to ensure all
steel bridges are welded to a standard that covers welding consumables,
welding procedure requirements, qualification requirements, personal
requirements, inspection and acceptance criteria. However, numerous
transportation products are not covered by the Bridge Welding Code
including light poles, high mast towers, sign structures, guard rail
systems, and even pedestrian bridges. Because these other product types
are not covered by the Bridge Welding Code, and because they are in or
over the right-of-way, they should be fabricated or manufactured to a
minimum design standard, and FHWA adopts the AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015
Structural Welding Code--Steel.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec. 625.4(c)(2)
and (d)(1)(x), FHWA is deleting the reference to the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing (described as ``Transportation Materials'' in the existing
regulatory text). This AASHTO publication covers a broad range of
material specifications and testing procedures. While these standards
represent effective, nationally recognized practices, adherence to
these standards is not mandatory in all circumstances. Removal of these
standards from the incorporation by reference is meant to clarify that
use of these standards is not a mandatory requirement as a design
standard for highways covered in part 625. Some of these material
specifications and testing procedures remain individually incorporated
by reference in regulations found in other parts of this title.
Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made based on a
comment received pertaining to Sec. 625.4(d)(1). FHWA is updating the
address and contact information for AASHTO to ``American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 555 12th Street
NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, 1-800-231-3475, <a href="https://store.transportation.org">https://store.transportation.org</a>.''.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.
625.4(d)(1)(i), FHWA is adopting the 2018 edition of the AASHTO
publication, A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets (Green
Book), replacing the 2011 edition. The 2018 Green Book supports efforts
to develop Complete Streets (<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets">https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets</a>) by emphasizing the need to utilize a flexible
design approach to balance the needs of all users and modes of travel.
It expands project context categories from two to five--adding rural
town, suburban, and urban core to the previous contexts of urban and
rural. While the 2018 Green Book is the adopted standard for NHS
highways, public entities may wish to also reference other documents to
inform the planning and design process, such as the Urban Street Design
Guide published by the National Association of City Transportation
Officials, the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities and Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Designing
Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. These and
other publications can support public entities in developing
transportation projects that incorporate safe and convenient walking
and bicycling facilities. Such projects improve safety for all modes,
create more equitable access to transportation, and combat climate
change.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Expand and Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian
Infrastructure, available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Expand-and-Improve-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Infrastructure">https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Expand-and-Improve-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Infrastructure</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 Green Book also better describes the various types of
projects--new construction, reconstruction, and projects on existing
roads where the basic road type is unchanged--and provides design
flexibility for each project type. This third project type is similar
to what historically have been referred to as RRR projects. FHWA
continues to use the term RRR in part 625 to be consistent with
language in title 23 of the U.S.C. Although AASHTO does not define the
phrase ``change in basic road type,'' FHWA generally interprets this
phrase to include projects that change the general geometric character
of a highway, such as widening to provide additional through motor
vehicle lanes, widening to add a raised or depressed median where none
currently exists, and projects that substantially modify horizontal or
vertical alignments. Road changes that are accomplished with no, or
only minimal, widening, such as lane reconfigurations (road diets),
adding turn lanes, adding channelizing islands, or adding median curbs
for access management are not considered a ``change in the basic road
type.'' See 85 FR at 74937. In addition, for the purposes of
determining geometric design criteria when applying the 2018 Green
Book, full-depth pavement replacement projects that retain existing
geometrics are not considered a ``change in the basic road type.'' The
2018 Green Book favors a performance-based approach for considering the
effects of geometric design decisions. Under a performance-based design
approach, the scope of geometric improvements for projects on existing
roads that retain the existing basic road type should be driven by past
safety and operational performance and predicted future performance for
all modes of transportation. Consistent with 23 U.S.C. 109(n), RRR
projects must preserve and extend the service life of
[[Page 37]]
the existing road and enhance highway safety.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.
625.4(d)(1)(vi), FHWA is incorporating by reference the 2018 Interim
Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design
Specifications. These standards are applicable to the design of bridge
spans, mechanical systems (motors, hydraulics, etc.), electrical
systems, and bridge protection systems for movable highway bridges.
Changes in the 2018 Interim Revisions reflect the latest research,
developments, and specifications promulgated by AASHTO and include
important updates to the provisions for the mechanical and structural
design requirements for span lock devices.
Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made to relocate the
incorporation by reference of AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code
from Sec. 625.4(d)(1)(vii) to (d)(2)(iii). While reviewing a comment
suggesting incorporating by reference the 2020 edition of AASHTO/AWS
D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code, FHWA found that while the 2020 edition
was available on the AWS website, it was not available on the AASHTO
website. It has since been posted to the AASHTO website. Because
updates of the full document, which are generally published every 5
years, are available from the AWS Bookstore, FHWA is reserving Sec.
625.4(d)(1)(vii) for future use and moving the incorporation by
reference of the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code to Sec.
625.4(d)(2)(iii). Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is
deleting the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-
AMD1, Bridge Welding Code, previously adopted in Sec.
625.4(d)(1)(vii)(A). This interim revision was provided by AASHTO to
owners and fabricators for informational purposes only to alert them to
proposed revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2015 Bridge Welding
Code. The interim revisions can be used, but FHWA is not retaining them
as a minimum design standard.
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.
625.4(d)(1)(viii), FHWA is incorporating the 2019 and 2020 Interim
Revisions to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports
for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. In Sec.
625.4(d)(1)(ix), FHWA is incorporating the 2019 and 2020 Interim
Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. These standards are
applicable to the structural design of supports for highway signs,
luminaires, and traffic signals. They are intended to serve as a
standard and guide for the design, fabrication, and erection of these
types of supports. Changes in the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions to
both publications reflect the latest research, developments, and
specifications promulgated by AASHTO and address items such as
providing updated dimensional and detailing requirements for certain
support connections to control fatigue and providing updated
requirements on the testing of welds in certain connections.
Use of the updated standards is required for all NHS projects
authorized to proceed with design activities on or after one year
following the effective date of the final rule, unless an extension is
granted for unique or extenuating circumstances.
Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the NPRM
FHWA received 18 public comments in response to the NPRM.
Commenters included several State DOTs, industry associations,
associations of State and local officials, and individuals. The
following summarizes the comments received and FHWA's responses to the
most significant issues raised in the comments.
Comment
FHWA received general comments on the NPRM that do not concern
specific provisions of the rule. Four State DOTs, the American Council
of Engineering Companies, the National Association of Small Trucking
Companies, and the American Road & Transportation Builders Association
expressed general support for the regulatory changes.
Response
FHWA appreciates the comment.
Comment
The Delaware DOT expressed support for incorporating by reference
the updated documents as proposed. They asked FHWA to consider
eliminating the requirement for standards regarding RRR projects on the
NHS.
Response
Under 23 U.S.C. 109(a), the Secretary must ensure proposed highway
projects are designed and constructed in accordance with criteria best
suited to serve adequately the existing and planned future traffic of
the highway in a manner that is conducive to safety, durability, and
economy of maintenance. FHWA has determined that standards for RRR
projects on the NHS are necessary to implement this statutory
requirement as well as the statutory requirement for design criteria
for the NHS under 23 U.S.C. 109(c) and Congress's intent that any
project for resurfacing, restoring, or rehabilitating any highway,
other than a highway access to which is fully controlled, in which
Federal funds participate shall be constructed in accordance with
standards to preserve and extend the service life of highways and
enhance highway safety, as identified in 23 U.S.C. 109(n).
Comment
The Missouri DOT asked for clarification on the meaning of the text
in Sec. 625.3(a)(1) that reads ``shall be those approved by the
Secretary in cooperation with the State DOTs.''
Response
The cited text mirrors the statutory language found in 23 U.S.C.
109(b) and (c)(2). The text means that the standards adopted by FHWA
are developed in conjunction with the State DOTs. Many of the standards
adopted by FHWA are AASHTO publications that are approved by the State
DOTs through a balloting process. AASHTO does not publish RRR criteria
but States may adopt State RRR standards for use on the NHS under 23
CFR 625.4(a)(3), subject to FHWA approval. In this case, FHWA works
directly with individual States.
Comment
The Missouri DOT also suggested that the adoption of the latest
Interim Revisions for structural supports for highway signs,
luminaires, and traffic signals in Sec. 625.4(d)(1)(viii)(B) and (C)
and (d)(1)(ix)(C) and (D) is not necessary because updating their
standards systemically is time and cost prohibitive, especially when
failures of poles, mast arms, etc. are not as catastrophic as a bridge
failure. They believe they have sufficient procedures in place for
routine maintenance and in-service inspections to prevent eminent
structural failures.
Response
General provisions to control fatigue in the design of ancillary
highway structures were first incorporated by reference into 23 CFR
part 625 in 2015 (80 FR 61307). The interim revisions adopted here do
not substantially affect the fatigue design provisions already
incorporated by reference, and therefore FHWA does not expect these
updates to be time or cost prohibitive compared to previous
requirements. No change was made to the final regulatory text.
[[Page 38]]
Comment
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) expressed general
support for the changes and encouraged additional discussion of 23 CFR
625.3(a)(4) which is conditioned, in part, on whether ``the local
jurisdiction is a direct recipient of federal funds for the project.''
ASCE notes that confusion may arise on projects that utilize multiple
funding sources and asks whether this provision applies only to
projects that solely rely on Federal funds, or if it includes projects
where Federal funds account for a portion of the funding required.
Response
Section 1404(b) of the FAST Act provides local jurisdictions with
additional flexibility in the choice of design standards for specific
projects. Under section 1404(b), a State may allow a local jurisdiction
to design the project using a roadway design publication that is
different from the roadway design publication used by the State in
which the local jurisdiction resides if the following requirements are
met: (1) The local jurisdiction is a direct recipient of Federal funds
for the project; (2) the design publication is adopted by the local
jurisdiction and recognized by FHWA; (3) the design(s) complies with
all applicable Federal laws and regulations; and (4) projects applying
the design publication are on a roadway owned by the local jurisdiction
and not on the Interstate System. For section 1404(b) of the FAST Act
to apply, the entity must receive any Federal funds directly, such as
through a Federal grant (e.g., RAISE), not as a pass-through from
another entity. The project may also utilize non-Federal funds, but any
Federal funds must be received directly.
Comment
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
submitted comments on behalf of NACTO, the National League of Cities
(NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), the American Public Works
Association (APWA), and the National Association of Regional Councils
(NARC). They asked FHWA to replace ``may'' with ``shall'' in Sec.
625.3(a)(4), in an effort to strengthen the directive to States to
defer to recognized, adopted city design guidance on non-Interstate,
locally-owned, directly-Federally-funded projects. They also requested
that language be added allowing this provision to also apply when local
jurisdictions receive Federal funds as a subrecipient from a State.
Response
The requested changes are inconsistent with the statutory language
contained in the FAST Act. Congress specifically provided States with
the option--rather than a requirement--to allow local jurisdictions
that are direct recipients of Federal funds for a project to use a
publication other than the one used by the State. Congress also limited
this flexibility to local jurisdictions that are direct recipients of
Federal funds for the project. Therefore, the requested changes have
not been made in the final regulatory text.
Comment
AASHTO expressed general support for the proposed changes while
requesting a few specific changes.
Regarding Sec. 625.4(b), AASHTO referenced comments submitted in
March 2020 regarding the National Bridge Inspection Standards NPRM
(Federal Docket No. FHWA-2017-0047), recommending that the Manual for
Bridge Evaluation and the Manual for Bridge Element Inspection be
removed from their current location in Sec. 650.317 and added to Sec.
625.4(b). AASHTO recommends this change, noting that [part] 625 is
updated more frequently than [part] 650 and relocating these two
references would allow for States to use the most current edition
earlier.
Response
Since the documents incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 650
describe processes related to the inspection and evaluation of in-
service bridges, rather than structural design, their incorporation
into 23 CFR part 625 would be inconsistent with the purpose of the
Design Standards regulation, as stated in Sec. 625.1, which is ``To
designate those standards, policies, and standard specifications that
are acceptable to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for
application in the geometric and structural design of highways.'' No
change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment
Regarding Sec. 625.5(b)(9), AASHTO supports the addition of AWS
D1.1/D1.1M Structural Welding Code--Steel to the list of acceptable
design standards. They recommended the addition of language stating
that if there is a conflict between D1.1 or D1.4 and the AASHTO/AWS
D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code that the Bridge Welding Code take
precedence.
Response
The purpose of the Design Standards regulation is to designate
acceptable design standards and it is not intended to function like a
contractual vehicle that would set out an order of precedence. Other
standards incorporated by reference into 23 CFR part 625, such as the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, appropriately provide
direction on where each AWS specification is applicable. No change was
made in the final regulatory text.
Comment
Regarding Sec. 625.4(d)(1), AASHTO requested that the contact
information for AASHTO be changed to ``American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 555 12th Street NW,
Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, 1-800-231-3475, <a href="https://store.transportation.org">https://store.transportation.org</a>.''
Response
The revised contact information has been incorporated in the final
regulatory text.
Comment
The Minnesota DOT requested that the regulation be modified to
allow for a process by which a DOT could request a programmatic
exception to the design standards adopted for the NHS, primarily the
AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green
Book), subject to FHWA approval.
Response
With respect to design criteria for new construction and
reconstruction projects, FHWA adopts standards such as the Green Book
based on the results of the AASHTO committee process as described in 23
U.S.C. 109(c)(2)(A). The AASHTO committees develop design criteria with
input from transportation officials across the country and play an
important role in vetting new research and determining what to include
in national criteria. The AASHTO balloting process ensures that
publications issued by AASHTO are supported by a majority of State
DOTs. FHWA intends to continue following this process without
individual State programmatic exceptions to deviate from these
standards. The allowance to develop State RRR standards for all roadway
classifications should eliminate the need for many project design
exceptions. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
[[Page 39]]
Comment
The American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) recommended that
Sec. 625.3(a)(1)(iii) focus on the use of life-cycle cost analysis by
modifying the text to read ``Life-cycle cost savings by utilizing
flexibility that exists in current design guidance and regulations;
and''.
Response
The language for Sec. 625.3(a)(1)(iii) matches the statutory text
found in 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1)(C). The statutory language does not
preclude using life-cycle cost analysis. FHWA does not intend to limit
the statutory language regarding cost savings to life-cycle cost
savings. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment
One individual recommended against the proposed changes in favor of
retaining the existing framework to ensure consistency in design of the
Interstate System, with continued allowance for States to request
design exceptions when standards cannot be met.
Response
The AASHTO Interstate Standards, adopted in 23 CFR 625.4(d)(1)(ii),
have long allowed RRR projects to use the standard in place at the time
of original construction or incorporation into the Interstate System,
so FHWA does not anticipate the final rule to substantially effect
project design on the Interstate System. No change was made to the
final regulatory text.
Comment
Another individual requested the following changes to the design
standards and standard specifications incorporated by reference in
Sec. 625.4:
1. Reorganize paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) by part number.
2. Revise paragraph (b)(6) to be consistent with rest of paragraph
and reference the full standard title.
3. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (vii) and (d)(2)(i) to reference
the 2020 editions of referenced standards.
4. Revise redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(ii) to reference the 2018
edition of the AWS D1.4/D1.4M Structural Welding Code--Steel
Reinforcing Bars.
Response
Responses to the above comments are provided in the same order:
1. Paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) will not be rearranged to avoid
creating cross-reference problems from other parts of the CFR and from
other documents.
2. FHWA agrees with this suggestion and has revised the final
regulatory text.
3. The 2020 publications were released during development of the
NPRM. Since FHWA did not propose to adopt them in the NPRM, FHWA will
not adopt the new versions at this time but will consider them for
adoption in a future rulemaking. No changes in editions were made to
the final regulatory text. However, FHWA is reserving Sec.
625.4(d)(1)(vii) for future use and moving the incorporation of the
AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code to Sec. 625.4(d)(2)(iii)
because updates of the full document, which are generally published
every 5 years, are available from the AWS Bookstore.
4. The 2018 edition of the AWS D1.4/D1.4M Structural Welding Code--
Steel Reinforcing Bars will be considered in a future rulemaking since
FHWA did not propose to adopt it in the NPRM. No change was made to the
final regulatory text.
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
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. This action
complies with E.O.s 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation. The
amendments allow the development of RRR procedures or design criteria
for projects on freeways, update several industry design standards and
standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23
CFR part 625, and remove the corresponding outdated or superseded
versions of these standards and specifications. FHWA anticipates that
the rule does not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of
the economy. In addition, the rule does not interfere with any action
taken or planned by another agency and does not materially alter the
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs. The rule also does not raise any novel legal or policy
issues.
The following is a summary of the results of the economic analysis
for this rule. The preamble of the NPRM contained FHWA's economic
analysis and invited public comment. No comments were received
regarding the economic analysis or economic impact of this rulemaking.
FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking is
minimal. Based on project data captured in FHWA's Fiscal Management
Information System from October 2014 to September 2018, FHWA estimates
that an average of 685 projects (totaling $18.5 billion) per year, will
be eligible to be designed to State-specific RRR standards. FHWA does
not have data to determine how many of the 685 projects per year do not
meet the new construction standard through the implementation of design
exceptions, nor does FHWA have data to demonstrate how many hours State
DOTs spend developing design exception requests on freeway projects
undertaken to perform RRR-type work. FHWA requested that State DOTs
provide comments to the docket if they had any data that would be
relevant to this analysis. Specifically, FHWA sought data on (1) the
percentage of RRR-type freeway projects developed by State DOTs that
utilized a design exception because the project could not meet a new
construction standard, (2) the average number of employee hours spent
developing, reviewing, and approving each design exception, (3) the
average hourly compensation of employees involved with these design
exception activities, (4) reasons for requesting exceptions
(operational, safety, resource constraint, innovation, etc.), and (5)
cost savings associated with the proposed design exception. No data was
received in response to this request.
Most State DOTs already have staff dedicated to developing RRR
standards for non-freeway projects, and any additional staff time
needed to develop RRR standards for freeways is anticipated to be
minimal. The NCHRP released Research Report 876 entitled ``Guidelines
for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing,
Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects,'' which provides
guidance and assistance to States for developing these standards. See
<a href="http://www.trb.org/NCHRP/Blurbs/177914.aspx">http://www.trb.org/NCHRP/Blurbs/177914.aspx</a>. When this final rule is
implemented, the resulting design of the freeway project is anticipated
to be the same, but FHWA expects that net cost savings will be realized
by allowing the States to develop their own standards and eliminate the
need for many design exceptions.
FHWA does not anticipate any cost or safety impacts due to removing
the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and
Methods of Sampling and Testing from the list of standards incorporated
by reference. Nor does FHWA anticipate any cost or safety impacts due
to incorporating by reference the AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015
[[Page 40]]
Structural Welding Code--Steel, as most States are already using this
standard for the welding of miscellaneous structural steel items. FHWA
anticipates that the economic impact of updating several industry
design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated
by reference is minimal. These updated standards and specifications
represent recent refinements that professional organizations have
formally accepted and are widely used for projects off the NHS. For
these reasons, FHWA finds that the expected economic benefits of the
final rule will outweigh the estimated costs of the final rule. 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. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small
entities, such as local governments and businesses. Based on the
evaluation, FHWA has determined that this action is not anticipated to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The amendments update several industry design standards and
standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23
CFR part 625. FHWA has determined that the projected impact upon small
entities that utilize Federal-aid highway program funding for the
development of highway improvement projects on the NHS is expected to
be negligible. Therefore, FHWA certifies that the action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
FHWA has determined that this rule does not impose unfunded
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). The actions in this final rule will 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 (2 U.S.C. 1532). 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 final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined that this
action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism assessment. FHWA has also determined that
this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental
functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
This E.O. applies because State and local governments are directly
affected by the regulation, which is a condition on Federal highway
funding. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction,
for further information.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. FHWA has determined that this
final rule does not contain collection of information requirements for
the purposes of the PRA.
National Environmental Policy Act
FHWA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and has
determined that this action does not have any effect on the quality of
the human and natural environment because it only makes technical
changes and incorporates by reference the latest versions of design
standards and standard specifications previously adopted and
incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and removes the
corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and
specifications. The final rule qualifies as a categorical exclusion to
NEPA under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of
regulations, and no unusual circumstances under 23 CFR 771.117(b) are
present.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FHWA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13175 and anticipates
that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal law. This final rule
will not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian Tribal
governments nor will it have any economic or other impacts on the
viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, 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 this final rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues.
Regulation Identifier Number
A Regulation Identifier Number (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
the spring and fall 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 625
Design standards, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85 on:
Stephanie Pollack,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends 23 CFR part 625 as
follows:
PART 625--DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HIGHWAYS
0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 625 to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103, 109, 315, and 402; Sec. 1073 of Pub.
L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2012; Sec. 1404 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129
Stat. 1312; 49 CFR 1.85.
0
2. Amend Sec. 625.2 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
[[Page 41]]
Sec. 625.2 Policy.
* * * * *
(b) Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects
shall be constructed in accordance with standards that preserve and
extend the service life of highways and enhance highway safety. * * *
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 625.3 by:
0
a. Revising and republishing paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding subject headings to paragraphs (b) through (e); and
0
c. Revising and republishing paragraph (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 625.3 Application.
(a) Applicable standards. (1) Design and construction standards for
new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance
resurfacing), restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the NHS
shall be those approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the State
DOTs. These standards must consider, in addition to the criteria
described in Sec. 625.2(a), the following:
(i) The constructed and natural environment of the area;
(ii) The environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and
preservation impacts of the activity;
(iii) Cost savings by utilizing flexibility that exists in current
design guidance and regulations; and
(iv) Access for other modes of transportation.
(2) Federal-aid projects not on the NHS are to be designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State laws,
regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards, and
construction standards.
(3) Interstate highways located in Alaska and Puerto Rico shall be
designed in accordance with such geometric and construction standards
as are adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the
needs of the locality of the highway.
(4) A State may allow a local jurisdiction to design a project
using a roadway design publication that is different from the roadway
design publication used by the State in which the local jurisdiction
resides if--
(i) The local jurisdiction is a direct recipient of Federal funds
for the project;
(ii) The roadway design publication is adopted by the local
jurisdiction and recognized by FHWA;
(iii) The design complies with all applicable Federal laws and
regulations; and
(iv) The project is located on a roadway that is owned by the local
jurisdiction and is not part of the Interstate System.
(b) Deviations from specific minimum values on the NHS. * * *
* * * * *
(c) Application of other FHWA regulations. * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
(d) Funding source. * * *
* * * * *
(e) Very minor or no roadway work. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Exceptions--(1) Project exception. (i) Approval within the
delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given on a
project basis to designs on the NHS which do not conform to the minimum
criteria as set forth in the standards, policies, and standard
specifications for:
(A) Experimental features on projects; and
(B) Projects where conditions warrant that exceptions be made.
(ii) The determination to approve a project design that does not
conform to the minimum criteria is to be made only after due
consideration is given to all project conditions such as maximum
service and safety benefits for the dollar invested, compatibility with
adjacent sections of roadway and the probable time before
reconstruction of the section due to increased traffic demands or
changed conditions.
(2) Programmatic exception. Approval within the delegated authority
provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given, on a programmatic basis,
to use a more recent edition of any standard or specification
incorporated by reference under Sec. 625.4(d).
0
4. Amend Sec. 625.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) and (b)(6) and (7);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(9);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c);
0
d. Revising the last sentence in the paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
e. Revising and republishing paragraphs (d)(1) and (2); and
0
f. Adding a subject heading to paragraph (e).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 625.4 Standards, policies, and standard specifications.
(a) * * *
(1) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO
(incorporated by reference; see paragraph (d) of this section).
* * * * *
(3) The geometric design standards for resurfacing, restoration,
and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS highways shall be the
procedures or the design criteria established for individual projects,
groups of projects, or all RRR projects in a State, and as approved by
FHWA. The RRR design standards shall reflect the consideration of the
traffic, safety, economic, physical, community, and environmental needs
of the projects. If a State does not adopt design procedures or
criteria for RRR projects as approved by FHWA, the standards listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall apply.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) AWS D1.4/D1.4M Structural Welding Code--Reinforcing Steel
(paragraph (d) of this section).
(7) AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (paragraph (d) of this
section); or AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for
Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals (paragraph (d) of this
section).
* * * * *
(9) AWS D1.1/D1.1M Structural Welding Code--Steel (paragraph (d) of
this section).
(c) Materials. (1) General Materials Requirements, refer to 23 CFR
part 635, subpart D.
(2) Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction, refer to 23 CFR
part 637, subpart B.
(d) * * * For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5d3c79bdcdbc6c5d0d6c1dcdadbf5dbd4c7d49bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6503174b0c0b16150006110c0a0b250b0417044b020a13">[email protected]</span></a> or go to <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>.
(1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), 555 12th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20004, 1-800-231-3475, <a href="https://store.transportation.org">https://store.transportation.org</a>.
(i) AASHTO GDHS-7, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, 7th Edition, 2018.
(ii) A Policy on Design Standards--Interstate System, May 2016.
(iii) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition,
2002
(iv) AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 4th Edition,
copyright 2017.
(v) AASHTO LRFD-8, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition,
2017.
(vi) AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd
Edition, 2007, with:
(A) Interim Revisions, 2008,
(B) Interim Revisions, 2010,
(C) Interim Revisions, 2011,
[[Page 42]]
(D) Interim Revisions, 2012,
(E) Interim Revisions, 2014,
(F) Interim Revisions, 2015, and
(G) Interim Revisions, 2018.
(vii) [Reserved]
(viii) AASHTO LTS-6, Standard Specifications for Structural
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 6th
Edition, copyright 2013, with:
(A) AASHTO LTS-6-I1, 2015 Interim Revisions to Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2014,
(B) AASHTO LTS-6-I2-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2018, and
(C) AASHTO LTS-6-I3, 2020 Interim Revisions to Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2019.
(ix) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1, LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports
for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 1st Edition,
copyright 2015, with:
(A) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I1-OL, 2017 Interim Revisions to LRFD
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2016,
(B) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I2-OL, 2018 Interim Revisions to LRFD
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2017,
(C) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I3-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to LRFD
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2018, and
(D) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I4, 2020 Interim Revisions to LRFD
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires,
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2019.
(2) American Welding Society (AWS), 8669 NW 36 Street, #130 Miami,
FL 33166-6672; <a href="http://www.aws.org">www.aws.org</a>; or (800) 443-9353 or (305) 443-9353.
(i) AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel, 23rd
Edition, copyright 2015, including Errata March 2016 (second printing).
(ii) AWS D1.4/D1.4M:2011 Structural Welding Code -Reinforcing
Steel, 2011.
(iii) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code, 7th
Edition, Amendment: December 12, 2016.
(e) Additional design resources. * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-28236 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 3, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.