Rule2024-25757
Interstate System Access
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
November 7, 2024
Effective
December 9, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Highway Administration
Abstract
This final rule amends FHWA 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. This final rule codifies and clarifies existing policies and practices regarding State DOT requests for, and FHWA approval of, changes in access to the Interstate System.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 88118-88128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25757]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends FHWA 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. This final rule codifies and clarifies existing
policies and practices regarding State DOT requests for, and FHWA
approval of, changes in access to the Interstate System.
DATES: This final rule is effective December 9, 2024. Use of this new
regulation is required for all State DOT requests for, and FHWA
approval of, changes in access to the Interstate System documented in
an Interstate Access Justification Report dated after December 9, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clayton Wellman, Office of
Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements (HICP-10), (202) 366-4658,
or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#51123d3028253e3f7f06343d3d3c303f11353e257f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8bb9499818c9796d6af9d9494959996b89c978cd69f978e">[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#226e47540c654340504b4e4d544b414a62464d560c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fc3eaf9a1c8eeedfde6e3e0f9e6ece7cfebe0fba1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
e.t., 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 U.S. Government Publishing
Office's website at <a href="http://www.GovInfo.gov">www.GovInfo.gov</a>.
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
(<a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfm">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfm</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Access Justification Reports (IAJR) pertaining to
certain changes in access to the Interstate System.
Statement of the Problem and Regulatory History
The FHWA published a NPRM on September 19, 2023 (88 FR 64388),
seeking public comment on proposed amendments to its regulations to
incorporate provisions governing changes in access to the Interstate
System at new 23 CFR part 624. The FHWA received 57 comments submitted
to the docket from 19 commenters representing State DOTs, individuals,
and planning organizations. After carefully considering the comments
received in response to the NPRM, FHWA is promulgating final
regulations with changes from the proposed regulatory text. The FHWA
did not receive comments on the new information collection associated
with this proposal, specifically the submittal of two reports that
State DOTs have submitted to FHWA for years under the existing policy:
the IAJR and the Programmatic Agreement (PA) annual report.
[[Page 88119]]
To facilitate implementation of the 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 IAJR submitted by the State DOT. The IAJR 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).
The FHWA initially developed and published the Policy in October
1990 (55 FR 42670) 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. The
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 (ISTEA) of 1991 (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. The 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 to reference Federal laws, regulations, and FHWA
policies. Finally, FHWA issued the 2017 Interstate Access Policy (2017
Policy), dated May 22, 2017 (<a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfm">www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfm</a>), 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 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 regulation facilitates
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 does
not impact the separate de-designation process.
Interstate System Access Regulation at 23 CFR Part 624
This rule establishes 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
facilitates decisionmaking regarding proposed changes in access to the
Interstate System in a manner that considers SO&E. Consistent with 23
U.S.C. 109(a) and (b) and 23 U.S.C. 111, new or modified points of
access to the Interstate System must be approved by FHWA if a Federal-
aid project agreement has ever been executed on the segment of
Interstate highway impacted by the proposal. To facilitate these
approvals, such new or modified points of access must be developed in
accordance with the requirements of this regulation. In addition, new
or modified points of access must comply with the requirements in 23
CFR part 625, Design Standards for Highways. As discussed in Sec.
624.8, change in access requests will not be accepted from other
parties besides a State DOT. Thus, for projects that do not include
State DOT involvement, such as discretionary grants awarded directly to
local government entities, any change in access requests must come from
the appropriate State DOT.
The 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 IAJR 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, 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 regulation identifies 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, the analysis must be documented in the
form of a standalone IAJR and submitted by the State DOT to FHWA for a
SO&E determination. The FHWA expects that an IAJR will be clearly
written for someone who is not familiar with the project, the area, or
the State. The technical analysis presented in the IAJR 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 regulation does not alter or restrict the option for FHWA to
delegate approval authority for the determination of SO&E acceptability
of IAJRs to a State DOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 111(e). Nor does 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 (CE)) or 23 U.S.C. 327
(Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program). The FHWA may grant
final approval of an Interstate System change in access request once a
favorable SO&E determination has been made by FHWA, and the applicable
transportation planning, conformity, and National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) procedures have been completed. In addition, the alternative
selected and approved in the NEPA decision must also be the subject of
a favorable SO&E determination. The FHWA retains authority for final
approval of changes in access to the Interstate System under the
regulation, consistent with current practice.
The section-by-section analysis provides a detailed discussion of
the final rule.
Section-by-Section Discussion
The FHWA received 57 comments submitted to the docket from 19
commenters representing State DOTs, individuals, and planning
organizations. The following summarizes the comments received and
FHWA's responses to the most significant issues raised in the comments.
This section discusses the changes to 23 CFR part 624 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.
[[Page 88120]]
General Comments
Comment: The commenters recommended that the name of the technical
report required for the justification and documentation of requests for
changes in access to the Interstate System be changed from ``Interstate
Justification Report'' to a name that clearly identifies the purpose of
the documentation that is provided in the report.
Response: Section 111(e), Title 23 U.S.C., uses the term,
``Justification Report'' when referring to the technical report
developed for the purpose of justifying new or modified access to the
Interstate System. States have used various names for these reports to
more closely describe the purpose of the report. The FHWA does not
propose to require States to use one name for the justification reports
but agrees with the commenters that a name more consistent with the
purpose of the report would be beneficial. The name of the report has
been revised to ``Interstate Access Justification Report'' throughout
part 624.
Comment: A commenter inquired if the 2010 Interstate System Access
Informational Guide will be revised to accompany this new Federal Rule.
Response: The FHWA is examining the Interstate System Access
Information Guide consistent with the provisions of this final rule.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding information to explain
when the final rule will take effect and to which IAJRs it would apply.
Response: The effective date of this regulation is shown above
under DATES. Use of this new regulation is required for all State DOT
requests for, and FHWA approval of, changes in access to the Interstate
System documented in an IAJR dated after December 9, 2025.
Comment: One individual recommended that the Policy be returned to
the 2009 version of the Policy.
Response: The streamlined Policy adopted in 2017 eliminated
duplicative documentation with other project reviews and has been
meeting the needs of the statute. No change was made in the final
regulatory text.
Sec. 624.1 Purpose
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text contained in the
September 19, 2023, NPRM, FHWA sets forth the purpose of Part 624 in
Sec. 624.1. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Sec. 624.3 Applicability
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec. 624.3 specifies
the conditions under which proposed part 624 is applicable. Changes
were made to the proposed regulatory text to add two more exceptions in
Sec. 624.3(d) and (e) based on comments received.
In Sec. 624.3(d), an exception was added to exclude access to
State maintenance facilities located within the Interstate right-of-way
and not open to the public from this regulation. Section 111, Title 23
U.S.C., provides the statutory authority for the Interstate System
Access rulemaking. The statute applies to added or modified connections
from outside of the right-of-way or connections between Interstate
highways. State maintenance facilities located within the right-of-way
with no connections outside of the right-of-way are not subject to
these requirements. Access to these facilities should be evaluated by
the State DOT to ensure the design of access points will not have a
significant adverse impact on safety and operations.
In Sec. 624.3(e), an exception was added to exclude access points
to non-freeway sections of the Interstate System located in Alaska or
Puerto Rico with average daily traffic volumes less than 400 vehicles
per day from this regulation. The Interstate System in Alaska and
Puerto Rico are subject to different design standards under 23 U.S.C.
103, therefore their Interstate System highways are sometimes two-lane
rural highways. This exception applies to non-freeway Interstate System
segments located in Alaska or Puerto Rico with average daily traffic
volumes less than 400 vehicles per day. In such cases, the FHWA
Division Administrator shall determine the level of analysis required
to secure FHWA approval of the access modification.
Comment: Regarding the applicability of the regulation in Sec.
624.3, a commenter recommended flexibility for Alaska to approve
certain types of access that are less than interchange/freeway
situations, noting that Alaska is permitted to follow geometric and
construction standards that differ from other States and that much of
their Interstate system are low volume roads. They requested
clarification be added to Sec. 624.3 Applicability or Sec. 624.13
Programmatic Agreement.
Response: Section 111(e), Title 23 U.S.C., provides some
flexibility for State DOTs to approve justification reports through the
Interstate System Access PA process. The FHWA can provide assistance
with exploring the PA process and how it pertains to Alaska's
circumstances. The FHWA has revised Sec. 624.3 to clarify an exception
for low volume connections to non-freeway segments of the Interstate
System located in Alaska or Puerto Rico.
Comment: A commenter requested clarification on whether the
exemption in Sec. 624.3(b) includes maintenance access to support
facilities such as stormwater management ponds, and other maintenance
installations, that are located within the Interstate System right-of-
way.
Response: Maintaining stormwater management ponds and other
supportive infrastructure would be treated similar to mowing grass
along the Interstate, which does not require Interstate Access
approval. State DOTs would follow their processes and procedures to
ensure that current standards are applied to develop and implement a
traffic control plan that maintains safety and operations along the
Interstate when maintenance activities are performed. This rulemaking
will not impact routine maintenance activities performed within the
right-of-way to maintain Interstate facilities. No change was made in
the final regulatory text. However, in response to another comment, a
new exception was added to the regulatory text in Sec. 624.3 to
provide an exception for State maintenance facilities located within
the Interstate right-of-way.
Comment: A commenter sought clarification on whether the exemption
in Sec. 624.3(b) applies to access to State DOT salt sheds or other
maintenance facilities not open to the public and accessible to
vehicles only to and from the Interstate System.
Response: Access to State DOT salt sheds or other State maintenance
facilities within the Interstate System right-of-way that are not open
to the public should be evaluated by the State DOT to ensure the design
of access points will not have a significant adverse impact on safety
and operations. The FHWA has added an exception to the applicability of
this regulation in Sec. 624.3(d) to provide an exception for State
maintenance facilities located within the Interstate right-of-way and
not open to the public.
Comment: Regarding the exception provision in Sec. 624.3(c), a
commenter noted that connection ramps between toll facilities and
general-purpose lanes often have a significant impact on the operation
and safety of the general-purpose lanes, particularly concerning
merging and diverging movements. They recommended further clarification
regarding this exception.
[[Page 88121]]
Response: Section 111, Title 23 U.S.C., provides the statutory
authority for the Interstate System Access rulemaking. The FHWA
interprets that the statute applies to added or modified connections
from outside of the right-of-way or connections between Interstate
highways. The FHWA Policy has been to exclude changes in access between
managed lanes and general purpose lanes from FHWA review and action, as
noted in the 2010 Interstate Access Informational Guide, section 3.3.2.
The guide is available at <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/interstate/pubs/access/access.pdf">www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/interstate/pubs/access/access.pdf</a>. The FHWA agrees that it is important for State DOTs
to carefully consider the safety and operational impacts of connections
between managed lanes and general purpose lanes, but an IAJR is not
required because no connections are provided from outside of the right-
of-way or between Interstate highways. No change was made in the final
regulatory text.
Sec. 624.5 Definitions
Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made based on comments
received pertaining to the definitions in Sec. 624.5. The definition
for Access Point was revised to include connections to managed lanes,
such as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, value priced lanes, high-
occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, or exclusive or special use lanes, since
they are part of the Interstate System and access to them must be
controlled. While connections between managed lanes and general purpose
lanes on the same Interstate highway are exempted from this regulation
under Sec. 624.3(c), inclusion here clarifies that other connections
to managed lanes are subject to this regulation. A definition for Final
Approval was added for clarity. The name for the technical report
submitted by the State was changed to Interstate Access Justification
Report (IAJR) to clarify that the report addresses access to the
Interstate System, not justification for the Interstate overall.
Consistent with the revised definition of Access Point, the definition
of the Interstate System was revised to include managed lanes because
these are a critical part of the Interstate System. The definition of
the Interstate System was also revised to include portions of frontage
roads that function as part of an interchange by providing movements to
and from the crossroad. Since publishing the proposed rule, FHWA has
fielded technical assistance questions regarding frontage roads and
determined it important to clarify this point in the definition,
consistent with guidance found at <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/frontage.cfm">www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/frontage.cfm</a>. Access
to frontage roads should be fully controlled in the vicinity of ramp
gores, as described in the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials A Policy on Design Standards--Interstate
System, 2016, which has been adopted by FHWA as a standard in Sec.
625.4(a)(2). New or modified access to the frontage road is controlled
by the State DOT and an IAJR under this regulation is not required.
Therefore, the reference to a portion of frontage roads has not been
added to the definition of Access Point in the final regulatory text.
The definition for safety rest area was modified to limit the scope of
the definition for the purposes of this regulation to safety rest areas
located within the Interstate System right-of-way.
Comment: One individual suggested that the definition of ``Access
Point'' in Sec. 624.5 was not precise enough and could cause some
ambiguity in the interpretation of what constitutes an access point to
the Interstate System. They suggested FHWA specify the type and
configuration of the access point, such as whether it is a ramp, a
lane, a road, or a bridge, and how it connects to the Interstate
mainline or crossroad.
Response: The definition of ``Access Point'' is centered on
connections to Interstate System elements such as through lanes or
shoulders, managed lanes, collector-distributor roads, or ramps that
would provide direct access to the Interstate System consistent with
the 1990 and 1998 policies. It is not specific to the type and
configuration of the access point. Consistent with changes to the
definition of ``Interstate System'' in Sec. 624.5, the definition for
Access Point was revised to include connections to managed lanes, such
as HOV lanes, value priced lanes, HOT lanes, or exclusive or special
use lanes, since they are part of the Interstate System and access to
them must be controlled. While connections between managed lanes and
general purpose lanes on the same Interstate highway are exempted from
this regulation under Sec. 624.3(c), inclusion here clarifies that
other connections to managed lanes are subject to this regulation.
Comment: A commenter recommended expanding the definition of
``Change in Access'' in Sec. 624.5 to exclude modification of an
entrance or exit ramp location by less than 200 ft with no change in
the number of access points or interchange configuration.
Response: The FHWA has determined that establishing a specific
distance is not appropriate because each location is unique. The 2010
Interstate Access Informational Guide, section 3.3.2 lists some project
types that may not require FHWA review and action, including shifts in
a ramp's location within the same interchange configuration when the
resulting ramp spacing will meet FHWA's design criteria adopted in
Sec. 625.4. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter recommended providing a definition in Sec.
624.5 for ``Final Approval'' because it is unclear to what the final
approval applies.
Response: The FHWA agrees with the suggestion and has added a
definition for ``Final Approval'' in Sec. 624.5.
Comment: One individual recommended that the definition of
``Interstate System'' be modified to include managed lanes (HOV lanes,
etc.).
Response: The FHWA agrees that managed lanes within the Interstate
right-of-way function as part of Interstate and impact the operations
of the Interstate facility. The definition for the ``Interstate
System'' in Sec. 624.5 was modified to include managed lanes
(including HOV lanes, value priced lanes, HOT lanes, or exclusive or
special use lanes).
Comment: A commenter inquired whether a State DOT can install
locked gate access for maintenance of the Interstate System without
FHWA approval.
Response: The change in definition of an ``Access Point'' in Sec.
624.5 allows State DOTs to install locked gate access without FHWA
approval if the access does not provide a connection to the through
lanes or shoulders, managed lanes, collector-distributor roads, or
ramps on the Interstate System. No change was made in the final
regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter inquired in Sec. 624.5 about the definition
of ``Access Point'' differentiating between locked gate access for
vehicular use versus an access point for bikes and pedestrians.
Response: Locked gate access that provides a connection to through
lanes or shoulders, managed lanes, collector-distributor roads, or
ramps on the Interstate System will require an IAJR documenting an
analysis to determine the safety, operations, and engineering aspects
of the change. There is no distinction based on the mode of travel.
Access points for pedestrians and bicyclists that do not connect to the
roadways that comprise the Interstate System are not subject to this
part. Coordination with FHWA is required to determine if a right-of-way
use agreement is required in accordance
[[Page 88122]]
with 23 CFR 710.405 and to evaluate any potential impact to the
Interstate System safety or operations. No change was made in the final
regulatory text.
Comment: Several commenters recommended amending the definition of
``Safety Rest Area'' in Sec. 624.5 to include language that specifies
the safety rest areas are within the Interstate right-of-way.
Response: Part 624 provides requirements for consideration of
changes in access to the Interstate System. Safety Rest Areas located
outside of the Interstate right-of-way with no connection to the
Interstate System are not subject to the requirements of part 624. To
clarify this point, FHWA revised the definition in Sec. 624.5 of the
final regulatory text to clarify that ``Safety Rest Area'' means a
safety rest area that is located within the Interstate System right-of-
way.
Comment: A commenter recommended clarifying the applicability of
this part 624 to facilities serving active transportation users such as
pedestrians, bicyclists, and micromobility users; and clarifying the
intent of the NPRM language as it relates to all road users. A
commenter also recommended clarifying the intended user application in
the definitions or clarifying the steps required for bike/pedestrian/
etc. facilities only.
Response: ``Access point'' is defined in Sec. 624.5 as a permanent
connection to facilities comprising the Interstate System, such as the
through lanes or shoulders, managed lanes, collector-distributor roads,
or ramps. There is no distinction based on the mode of travel. Access
points for pedestrians and bicyclists that do not connect to the
roadways that comprise the Interstate System are not subject to this
part. Coordination with FHWA is required to determine if a right-of-way
use agreement is required in accordance with 23 CFR 710.405 and to
evaluate any potential impact to the Interstate System safety or
operations. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: Several commenters asked for additional clarity on the
definition of area of influence and recommend expanding the definition
to include more detail.
Response: The definition of ``Area of Influence'' (AOI) in Sec.
624.5 provides a basic understanding how the AOI extents are
determined. Section 624.11(b)(3) provides the framework for determining
the minimum extent of the AOI. The safety and operational impacts of
the proposed change in access impel the need to extend the limits, as
necessary, to support making an informed decision based on the
consequences of the project. The FHWA should be consulted early in this
process to ensure the proposed limits are adequate to evaluate the
request for a change in access to the Interstate System. No change was
made in the final regulatory text.
Sec. 624.7 Interstate System Access Requirements
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec. 624.7 specifies
the requirements applicable to Interstate System access. The phrase
``safety for all roadway users'' was replaced with ``safety for all
users of the transportation system'' to be consistent with Agency
guidance and clarify that this statement applied to all users of the
transportation system, including trail users, rather than only users of
the roadway. This change is also consistent with BIL language regarding
Complete Streets. In addition, changes were made based on comments
received. In Sec. 624.7(a), the requirements regarding the currency
for the operational and safety data used in the analysis have been
separated to clarify that the safety analysis shall include the most
recent 3 years of available safety data. The FHWA did not intend to
limit safety data to 5 years. If the State DOT believes the older data
is relevant based on the context of the project, it can be included in
the safety data set for the project, as long as the most recent safety
data is included. In Sec. 624.7(f)(4), FHWA added an additional
scenario where FHWA may grant an exception to the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (d) for locked gate access to a safety rest area
from a local public road for the limited purpose of providing access to
safety rest area employees, deliveries, and emergency vehicles.
Comment: A commenter recommended in Sec. 624.7 that FHWA provide a
time limitation guideline for microsimulation data so that there is no
misunderstanding when agencies use microsimulation.
Response: The purpose of this requirement is to provide a general
limitation on the age of data used in a traffic analysis. The FHWA
provides guidance for applying microsimulation modeling software in the
FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III. (<a href="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop18036/index.htm">https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop18036/index.htm</a>). Coordination with FHWA is
recommended when developing State specific guidance for traffic
analysis tools. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about references in
Sec. 624.7 of the preamble to the 3-year travel demand model update
timeframe, noting that while there is a 3-year requirement for the
development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plans in non-attainment
areas, no baseline requirement for this frequent of a model update
exists for areas in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
Response: The FHWA is not imposing new requirements for updating
travel demand models on a 3-year cycle. The intent of Sec. 624.7(a) is
to ensure that reasonably current traffic data is being used in the
operational analysis for justification reports since these reports
provide the basis for decisionmaking. No change was made in the final
regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter sought clarification on whether the traffic
data requirement in Sec. 624.7 applies outside of the metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO).
Response: The traffic data requirement in Sec. 624.7 applies to
all requests for new or modified access to the Interstate System. No
change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter sought clarification on what constitutes a
partial interchange, particularly where a single interchange serves
more than one crossroad in Sec. 624.7.
Response: A partial interchange is an interchange that does not
provide all of the basic movements, as defined in Sec. 624.5.
Movements can be accomplished utilizing more than one crossroad in
close proximity where those crossroads are connected by frontage roads
without being considered a partial interchange. For example, a split
diamond interchange configuration can reduce the number of movements
within each interchange and serve multiple crossroads. No change was
made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter sought clarification regarding the Sec. 624.7
preamble discussion on existing and projected land uses that should be
examined as part of the proposed access modification.
Response: Section 624.7(a) requires that proposals for modified
access consider the traffic operations and safety for all users of the
transportation system in the project's area of influence, both now and
in the future. Examining existing and projected land uses are a
critical factor in these analyses. The scope of the review should
include local future land use plans and approved developments. The
design should be compatible with the communities' goals and needs that
are demonstrated in their plans and policies which ensures a design
that fits land use contexts of the
[[Page 88123]]
community. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter recommended in Sec. 624.7 that FHWA consider
specifically mentioning the Highway Safety Manual methodologies.
Response: There are several safety analyses tools and techniques
(quantitative or qualitative) that can be deployed to analyze build and
no-build configurations of a proposed access modification. The FHWA
does not require the use of any specific tool. The FHWA encourages the
use of appropriate tools in a scope commensurate with the project
complexity. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: Commenters suggested in Sec. 624.7 that FHWA include more
clarity on the definition of a significant adverse impact and asked
whether State DOTs should work with FHWA to determine the significance
of impacts. Two individuals suggested that FHWA provide objective and
quantifiable criterion for determining the significance of an impact
and provide more requirements in metro areas for determining whether a
proposed change in access has a significant adverse impact on the
safety or operations of the Interstate System.
Response: Defining a threshold for significant adverse impact is
difficult without understanding the context of the unique project
conditions and the users impacted. Based on the safety and operations
analyses, judgement is used to determine whether an adverse impact is
significant and employ mitigation to address concerns identified. State
DOTs are encouraged to coordinate with FHWA to assist with determining
the significance of impacts. No change was made in the final regulatory
text.
Comment: A commenter is concerned that in Sec. 624.7(a) adding
``safety for all users within the project's area of influence'' would
add time to project scoping to define area of influence for each
individual Interstate Access Point Approval project.
Response: The DOT is committed to the long-term goal of reaching
zero roadway fatalities and has adopted the Safe System Approach to
help address the crisis on our roadways. The Safe System Approach is
the guiding paradigm of the National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS),
and we are dedicated to implementing the actions outlined in the NRSS
to move us closer to our zero deaths goal. Safety for all users, rather
than focusing only on motor vehicle operators, must be our focus to
reach this goal. This provision of Sec. 624.7(a) ensures that
proposals to modify access examine the impacts to all users of the
transportation system and seize opportunities to improve the safety for
vulnerable users when developing 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. This
ensures the proposed design fits the land use contexts in the community
in which the project is built. No change was made in the final
regulatory text.
Comment: Regarding Sec. 624.7(a), several commenters asked for
clarification on whether data sets that include crash data more than 5
years old may be utilized in the safety evaluation.
Response: The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the most
recent crash data available is being used to support the analysis.
Using crash data that is outdated would not provide an accurate
assessment of the safety performance of the facility because there may
have been significant changes to travel patterns and conditions as
evidenced by the need for the proposed access modifications. If the
data collection includes data that is more than 5 years old and the
State DOT believes the older data is relevant based on the context of
the project, it can be included in the data set for the project, as
long as the most recent data is also included. Coordination with FHWA
in these situations would be recommended to discuss the justification
for using older data in addition to recent data. The FHWA agrees that
clarification is needed and revised Sec. 624.7(a) to require the use
of at least the most recent 3 years of available safety data.
Comment: Commenters recommend extending the time period in Sec.
624.7(a) for which traffic and safety data is accepted for analysis
beyond 5 years with a traffic validation.
Response: In FHWA's experience, the 5-year window will generally
allow State DOTs to utilize the latest model developed by the MPO in
which the project falls, if applicable. If the State DOT is performing
an analysis and the MPO data is more than 5 years old, the State may
develop their own data suitable for the analysis. It is critical for
FHWA to evaluate a proposed access modification based on reasonably
current data, keeping in mind that the State DOT may not begin
construction for up to another 5-year period following an affirmative
SO&E determination, in accordance with Sec. 624.9(e). No change was
made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: Commenters recommend in Sec. 624.7(a) that FHWA clarify
when the 5-year time period will be applied, specifically at the time
of submission to FHWA.
Response: This requirement applies to the time period when the IAJR
is submitted to FHWA. However, if there are significant delays in
addressing initial FHWA comments and resubmitting the report to FHWA,
then there may be a need for the State DOT to verify the data. State
DOTs are encouraged to coordinate with FHWA early in the process when
developing requests for Interstate System access to avoid significant
delays to the review and approval processes.
Comment: A commenter recommended adding language to Sec. 624.7(a)
to suggest that safety hotspots identified within the area of influence
but outside of the project limits should be communicated to the
jurisdiction responsible for that roadway.
Response: The intent of the area of influence is to determine the
comprehensive safety and operational impacts of the proposed access
modification. If it is determined that the project is significantly
impacting safety within the area of influence, then the project should
mitigate for the impacts. The State DOT may need to coordinate with
other jurisdictions to ensure local impacts are addressed. No change
was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter recommended in Sec. 624.7(a) replacing the
``or'' with an ``and'', and inserting the ``20-year'' traffic
projection.
Response: The FHWA uses ``or'' to indicate that both the operations
of the Interstate System and safety for all users in the projects area
of influence are important and should be considered when developing a
project. If there is a significant impact to either, the project would
need to adequately address the impacts identified. Regarding future
traffic projections, the 20-year traffic projection requirement is
contained in 23 U.S.C. 109(b) and must be addressed as part of the
analysis, but is not the focal point of this regulation. No change was
made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter sought clarification on whether Sec. 624.7(b)
would prohibit a private road or commercial entrance from being located
directly across a public roadway from the access point.
Response: The intent of this provision is to prevent access point
connections that connect directly to private developments, parking
lots, or private roads to ensure that the access point connection will
remain open to the public and receive routine maintenance. A private
connection across the public roadway from the terminus of the ramp
[[Page 88124]]
at a crossroad is not expressly prohibited. However, as stated in A
Policy on Design Standards--Interstate System published by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in 2016,
which is the adopted standard under Sec. 625.4(a)(2), controlling
access on crossroads in the vicinity of interchanges can provide
significant benefits to traffic operations and safety performance
through the interchange area. For example, if a connection is made
opposite an exit ramp terminus, the design needs to mitigate the
potential for wrong way movements on the exit ramp. No change was made
in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter recommends adding language that would allow
gated access for rest area employees and deliveries via local roads
without direct access to the Interstate.
Response: The FHWA has determined that allowing a locked gate
access for the limited purpose of providing access to safety rest area
employees, deliveries, and emergency vehicles via local roads would be
in the public interest by removing this traffic from the Interstate
System. The FHWA has revised Sec. 624.7(f) to add an exception for
this purpose.
Sec. 624.9 Approval Process
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec. 624.9 sets out
the approval process for a change in access to the Interstate System.
The phrase ``congestion management process'' was removed from Sec.
624.9(d)(1) because this process is covered in the transportation
planning regulations at 23 CFR part 450--Planning Assistance and
Standards. A minor change to the proposed regulatory text was made to
change the reference to the technical report from IJR to IAJR,
consistent with the revised definition.
Comment: A commenter recommended including an appeal process for
when the FHWA's decision differs from the State DOT's recommendation.
Response: The FHWA is supportive of State DOTs when it comes to
developing and building projects. Early coordination between the State
DOT and FHWA can help ensure that FHWA concerns are addressed early in
the process. In the event FHWA's decision differs from the State DOT's
recommendation, FHWA is open to having discussions with the State DOT
to work on finding a path forward to ensure the project meets the
safety and operational needs of the Interstate System Access process.
No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: Commenters recommended in Sec. 624.9 that FHWA provide
timeframes for the review and the steps involved in the approval
process.
Response: Section 624.9 provides the framework of the process to
receive approval for a proposed change in access. The State DOT is
responsible for developing their policies and procedures as related to
submitting requests for proposed changes in access. The State DOT may
coordinate with FHWA to determine specific timeframes based on their
policies and procedures. No change was made in the final regulatory
text.
Comment: A commenter seeks clarification in Sec. 624.9(d) on
whether the SO&E determination can be made after a favorable NEPA
decision.
Response: The SO&E determination can be made before or after
receiving an approved NEPA decision. No change was made in the final
regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter seeks clarification on whether the NEPA
decision or the SO&E determination can occur independently from one
another. They also seek to clarify, if a State DOT can decide to
advance the NEPA process or the IAJR first.
Response: In Sec. 624.9(d), FHWA provides the conditions that must
be met for a State DOT to receive Final approval for a proposed change
in access. The FHWA does not determine the order in which a State DOT
advances the transportation planning, conformity, and NEPA requirements
or seeks a SO&E determination for a proposed change in access. A State
DOT can decide to advance either the NEPA process or the IAJR first or
in parallel. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: In Sec. 624.9(e), a commenter recommended extending the
time period in between affirmative SO&E determination and proceeding to
construction to 6 years while keeping a maximum of 10 years from the
time the data was collected.
Response: The 5-year time period commencing after an affirmative
SO&E determination for proceeding to construction provides up to 10
years to develop and begin construction on a project, but the 10-year
window is not specified in the regulation, as proposed. If the project
has not progressed to construction within 5 years of receiving an
affirmative SO&E determination, FHWA has flexibility to allow the
project to proceed to construction based on verification from the State
DOT demonstrating that the requirements of Sec. 624.7 are still met.
No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for extending the
time period for projects to commence construction from 3 to 5 years in
Sec. 624.9(e). Several commenters would also welcome a further
increase to the 8 years previously allowed under the 2009 Policy.
Response: In FHWA's experience, 5 years strikes the right balance
of moving forward with projects based on reasonably current data versus
requiring repetitive updates of access modification proposals by State
DOTs. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Sec. 624.11 Interstate Access Justification Report
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec. 624.11 sets out
the minimum requirements for the technical report submitted by the
State for a change in access to the Interstate System. A minor change
to the proposed section title and regulatory text was made to change
the name of the technical report to Interstate Access Justification
Report (IAJR), consistent with the revised definition.
Comment: A commenter seeks clarification in Sec. 624.11(a) on what
``other documents'' means.
Response: ``Other documents'' means any document other than the
IAJR that are often referenced in the IAJR but may not be available to
the FHWA reviewer. As noted in the parentheses, these include
feasibility studies, NEPA documents, or preliminary engineering reports
that were developed by a State DOT during their project development
process. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: In Sec. 624.11(b)(3), a commenter recommended revising
the minimum limits of the Area of Influence to an adjacent interchange
within 2 miles of the proposed change in access, rather than the
adjacent interchange with no limit on the distance.
Response: Section 624.11(d) provides FHWA with flexibility to
determine the extent of the safety and operational analysis based on
the complexity of the project. The State DOT can coordinate with FHWA
to discuss and provide justification for proposed analysis limits for a
project. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter recommended that Sec. 624.11(b)(3) provide
flexibility to shrink as well as expand the analysis limits based on
the project complexity.
Response: Section Sec. 624.11(b)(3) provides flexibility to extend
the analysis to ensure that the limits are appropriate to fully
understand the
[[Page 88125]]
impact of the proposed changes in access on the Interstate System and
local road network. Section Sec. 624.11(d) provides flexibility to
determine the extent of the analysis (shrink the limits, if justified)
based on the complexity of the project. The State DOT can coordinate
with FHWA to discuss and provide justification for proposed analysis
limits for a specific modification request. In addition, the 2010
Interstate Access Informational Guide, section 3.3.2 lists some project
types that may not require FHWA review and action. No change was made
in the final regulatory text.
Comment: A commenter suggested that Sec. 624.11(c) include more
detailed language on wrong way movements to focus on isolated exit
ramps without a corresponding entrance ramp.
Response: Section 624.11(c) provides the requirements and
considerations that must be addressed when seeking approval for a
partial interchange. The proposed regulatory text requires that the
potential for wrong-way movements be addressed as part of the
justification for a partial interchange, while allowing State DOTs to
provide the justification appropriate for each specific proposal. No
change was made in the final regulatory text.
Sec. 624.13 Programmatic Agreement
Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec. 624.13
specifies the provisions a State DOT must follow 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). No change was made in 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 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. This final rule codifies
existing policy, processes and procedures relating to new or modified
access to the Interstate System. The FHWA anticipates that this rule
does not adversely affect, in any 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 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 rule codifies 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. The 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 National Highway
System 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
The 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) (UMRA). 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 $168 million or more in any
one year (when adjusted for inflation). In addition, the definition of
``Federal Mandate'' in the UMRA 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)
The FHWA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has
determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The
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
The FHWA identified a paperwork burden and published the required
notices at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/19/2023-20218/interstate-system-access">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/19/2023-20218/interstate-system-access</a>. The OMB control number for the
information collection is 2125-0679.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and has determined that it qualifies for a 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 rule would not affect the NEPA process for Interstate access
requests and FHWA will not grant a project final approval until the
NEPA process was completed.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The 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, the funding and consultation
requirements
[[Page 88126]]
of E.O. 13175 do not apply and a Tribal summary impact statement is not
required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
The 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. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed rule does not raise any environmental
justice issues.
Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry
for this rulemaking at [<a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2125-AF89">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2125-AF89</a>].
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
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.85.
Kristen R. White,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, by adding part 624 to read 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 Access 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 paragraphs (b) through (e) 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, United States Code, 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.
(d) This part is not applicable to State maintenance facilities
that are located within the Interstate System right-of-way and not open
to the public.
(e) This part is not applicable to access points to non-freeway
Interstate System segments located in Alaska or Puerto Rico with
average daily traffic volumes less than 400 vehicles per day. In such
cases, the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 111 apply and the FHWA Division
Administrator shall determine the level of analysis required to secure
FHWA approval of the access modification.
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, managed lanes,
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.
Final approval. Acceptance for the proposed change in access
granted by FHWA upon completion of the appropriate transportation
planning, air quality conformity, and environmental review requirements
under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and receiving
concurrence on the Safety, Operations, and Engineering (SO&E)
determination.
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 Access Justification Report (IAJR). 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; managed lanes (including
high-occupancy vehicle lanes, value priced lanes, high-occupancy toll
lanes, or exclusive or special use lanes); ramp termini; and portions
of frontage roads that function as part of an interchange. 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, United States Code, 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 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 23
CFR 752.3(a) that
[[Page 88127]]
is located within the Interstate System right-of-way.
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 users of the transportation
system 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 data that is no more than 5 years old
and at least the most recent 3 years of available safety data.
(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 23 CFR part 625 or have approved
exceptions and shall comply with 23 CFR part 655.
(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 23 CFR 752.5(d);
(4) Locked gate access from a local public road to the safety rest
area for the limited purpose of providing access to safety rest area
employees, deliveries, and emergency vehicles; or
(5) 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 shall submit electronically to FHWA a request letter and an
IAJR 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
IAJR meeting the requirements of this part. The 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 PA 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 NEPA. Final approval may
be granted if the following conditions are met:
(1) Applicable transportation planning, conformity, 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 Access Justification Report.
(a) The IAJR 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 IAJR.
(b) At a minimum, an IAJR 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 IAJR for a proposed partial interchange shall meet the
following additional requirements.
(1) The IAJR shall include a full-interchange option with a
comparison of the operational and safety analyses to the partial
interchange option. The IAJR shall justify the necessity for a partial
interchange alternative.
(2) The IAJR 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 IAJR 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 IAJR.
Sec. 624.13 Programmatic Agreement.
A State DOT may submit to FHWA a written request to enter into a 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
[[Page 88128]]
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. The 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, 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 FHWA to ensure the
changes in access to the Interstate 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. 2024-25757 Filed 11-6-24; 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 November 7, 2024.
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.