[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33351-33358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16081]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 470
[Docket No. FHWA 97-2394]
RIN 2125-AD74
Federal-Aid Highway Systems
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending its regulation on Federal-aid highway
systems to incorporate changes made by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the National Highway
System Designation Act of 1995. The ISTEA, among other things, added
provisions defining the Federal-aid highway systems as the Interstate
System and the National Highway System (NHS) which replaced the
provisions defining the Federal-aid highway systems as the Interstate,
Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systems. The purpose of this document is
to reflect the statutory changes in defining the Federal-aid highway
systems, reduce regulatory requirements and simplify recordkeeping
requirements imposed on States, and consolidate (in appendices to the
regulation) all nonregulatory guidance material issued previously by
the FHWA on this subject.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective July 21, 1997. Comments
must be received by August 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to the docket number that
appears in the heading of this document to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-
0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the
above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas R. Weeks, Intermodal and
Statewide Programs Division (202) 366-5002, or Grace Reidy, Office of
the Chief Counsel, HCC-32, (202) 366-6226, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA is amending its regulation at 23
CFR Part 470, subpart A, on Federal-aid highway systems to: (1) Reflect
recent statutory changes made by sections 1006, 1024, 1025, and 1105 of
the ISTEA, Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, and sections 101 and 332 of
the NHS Act, Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568; (2) reduce regulatory
requirements and simplify recordkeeping requirements imposed on States;
and (3) consolidate, in appendices to the regulation, all relevant
nonregulatory guidance previously issued in the FHWA's policy memoranda
and the ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide.'' The amended regulation, including
its appendices, now combines all policies and guidance on the Federal-
aid highway systems in a single document for easy reference.
For a number of years prior to the ISTEA, the Federal-aid highway
systems consisted of four components--the Primary System (which also
included the Interstate System), the Urban System, and the Secondary
System. These four highway systems established basic eligibility of
qualifying roads and streets for construction or improvement with
certain categories of Federal-aid highway funds, i.e., the Interstate,
Primary, Secondary, and Urban System apportionments. The ISTEA
restructured the Federal-aid highway systems by rescinding the Federal-
aid Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systems and requiring the
establishment of a new NHS. Certain components of the NHS were
specified by statute, including the Interstate System and 21 high
priority corridors. The ISTEA also required a functional
reclassification of all public roads and streets to determine
eligibility for inclusion on the NHS and eligibility for funding under
the Surface Transportation Program. Pending enactment of legislation
approving the NHS, the ISTEA established an interim NHS that was
eligible for funding under the NHS program and consisted of all rural
and urban routes which were functionally classified as principal
arterials.
During December 1993, a proposed NHS was submitted by the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to Congress for approval, and the
NHS was subsequently designated by the NHS Act. The NHS Act, within 180
days of enactment, required the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)
to submit to Congress for approval proposed additions to the NHS,
consisting of connections to major intermodal terminal facilities. The
NHS Act also authorized the Secretary to approve modifications to the
NHS, including, once the initial designations were enacted by law, the
connections to intermodal terminals. Finally, the NHS Act designated
eight additional high priority corridors on the NHS and designated all,
or part of, four high priority corridors as future Interstate routes.
The proposed NHS connections to major intermodal terminals were
submitted to Congress in May 1996. To date, Congress has not enacted
legislation regarding these additional routes.
The FHWA issued interim guidance in February 1996 establishing
procedures for use by the States in proposing modifications to the NHS.
Guidance for use by the States in proposing modifications to the
Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 was issued in 1986. Guidance for
use by the States in proposing additions to the Interstate System under
Section 332 of the NHS Act was issued in February 1996. Guidance for
signing and numbering routes identified as future parts of the
Interstate System was issued in August 1996 and later modified in
December 1996. All guidance material contained in the documents noted
above is incorporated in the regulation at 23 CFR part 470 as
nonregulatory appendices. The documents were initially issued as FHWA
Headquarters memoranda that
[[Page 33352]]
were transmitted by the field offices to their respective States.
Section-by-Section Analysis
All Sections and Appendices
All references to the former Federal-aid Primary, Secondary, and
Urban Systems are removed. A number of provisions that apply to the
former Federal-aid Primary System are carried over to the new NHS.
References to statewide and metropolitan transportation planning are
expanded to include new statutory statewide transportation planning
requirements and have been coordinated with terms used in the planning
regulations at 23 CFR part 450. The responsible State body for
proposing changes to the Federal-aid highway systems is now identified
as the State transportation agency.
Because of the substantial number of deletions and additions, the
existing rule is essentially reorganized and rewritten in its entirety.
Therefore, section numbers, appendices and titles used herein are those
of the interim final rule, unless labeled as a former section or
appendix. Wording carried forward, or revised, may be from a different
numbered and titled former section. Additional substantive changes made
in specific sections and appendices are described below.
Section 470.101 Purpose
The regulations are applied to designation of routes on the
statutory Federal-aid highway systems.
Section 470.103 Definitions
The revised statutory name of the Interstate System, the ``Dwight
D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways,'' is
taken from section 1005(e) of the ISTEA. Terms used in the regulation
are retained for ``governor'' and ``metropolitan planning
organization.'' The term for ``responsible local officials'' is a new
heading used in the regulation. Definitions are added for
``consultation,'' ``cooperation,'' ``coordination,'' ``Federal-aid
highway systems,'' ``Federal-aid highways,'' and ``State.'' Definitions
needed only for nonregulatory guidance are removed.
Section 470.105 Urban Area Boundaries and Highway Functional
Classification
The minimum boundaries for Federal-aid urban areas are established
by reference to census urban places and census urbanized areas.
Modification (enlargement) of the boundaries is permitted by 23 U.S.C.
101. Guidance for the modification of urban area boundaries is now
contained in FHWA's ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide,'' which is available
for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D,
and is available for purchase from the FHWA, Office of Management
Systems, HMS-12, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. The limits
of urban areas can be of importance in the planning and programing of
improvements to the Federal-aid and other highway systems.
Functional classification is a prerequisite for determining the
newly defined Federal-aid highways and National Highway System.
Procedures for functional classification of existing roads and streets
according to functional usage are contained in the FHWA publication,
``Highway Functional Classification--Concepts, Criteria and
Procedures'' (March 1989) which is available from the FHWA's Office of
Environment and Planning, HEP-10, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC
20590. The mapping and the FHWA approval requirements are retained.
Section 470.107 Federal-Aid Highway Systems
The new National Highway System includes the Interstate System and
other principal arterials serving major travel destinations and
transportation needs, connectors to major transportation terminals, the
Strategic Highway Network and connectors, and high priority corridors
identified by law.
Statutory limits on the lengths of the Federal-aid highway systems
are being given in terms of kilometers using the factor of 0.62
kilometers per mile. The portion of Interstate System mileage that may
be based on 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) is limited to
43,000 miles (41,000, 500, and 1,500 miles, respectively). The limit on
NHS mileage is based on 115 percent of 155,000 miles.
Section 470.109 Proposed System Designations--General
Provisions applicable to any Federal-aid highway system are grouped
in this section; those applicable to the Interstate or NHS are included
separately in the following sections. The details of route location,
mapping, and numbering are no longer covered by regulation.
Former Section 470.111 Reclassifications, Deletions, and
Reinstatements
This section regarding the applicability of State agreements to
maintain Federal-aid projects is deleted as it is a duplication of
other directives and inappropriate to regulations on highway systems.
Section 470.111 Proposed Interstate System Designations
Additions to the Interstate System may no longer be approved under
the authority of 23 U.S.C. 103(e), which created eligibility for
Interstate construction funds. Furthermore, there are no new
authorizations of Interstate construction funds. Basic procedural
requirements are retained, however, for possible Interstate
modifications under 23 U.S.C. 103(f). The interim final rule now
incorporates several special provisions that existed for Interstate
additions. Also, included in the interim final rule are the general
requirements for designation of routes as parts, or future parts, of
the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) or (b). These
designations are made by the FHWA Administrator for routes that would
be logical additions to the Interstate System and are, or will be,
constructed to Interstate standards.
The FHWA also includes special provisions for Interstate routes in
Alaska and Puerto Rico under 23 U.S.C. 139(c) and provisions regarding
four corridors designated as future Interstate routes in section
332(a)(2) of the NHS Act.
The interim final rule recognizes the important and long standing
role of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) in the review of proposed route numbers for
Interstate highways.
Although the law is clear that highways designated as future parts
of the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139(b) may not be signed as a
part of the Interstate System, it is silent on whether or not they may
be signed as a future part. Because of increased interest in such
signing, the FHWA is including reference to a policy (see appendix C of
the rule) recently established for the signing of future Interstate
corridors that have been established either under 23 U.S.C. 139(b), or
under section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Act. The conference report on the
latter section stated that the ``* * * provision is intended to permit
States to erect signs along such designated routes as `future'
Interstates upon enactment.''
Section 470.113 Proposed National Highway System Designations
There are no additional substantive changes.
[[Page 33353]]
Former Section 470.111 Reclassifications, Deletions, and Reinstatements
Provisions relating to State obligations with respect to Federal-
aid projects are removed.
Section 470.115 Approval authority
There are no additional substantive changes.
Former Part 470, Subpart A, Appendix A--Florida (National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways); Appendix B--Primary Federal-Aid
System; Appendix C--Urbanized Federal-Aid Urban System
Former Appendix A, with a detailed format for listing Interstate
highway descriptions, is removed as unnecessary. Former Appendices B
and C, which refer to former Federal-aid systems, are removed as
obsolete.
Part 470, Subpart A, Appendix A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating
Requests for Interstate System Designations under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and
(b)
The criteria for designations of highways as parts, or future
parts, of the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and (b),
respectively, have been virtually unchanged since 1986. The appendix
includes both statutory and administrative criteria.
Appendix B--Designation of Segments of Section 332(a)(2) Corridors as
Parts of the Interstate System
These procedures for addition of highways designated as future
parts of the Interstate System under section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Act
were issued as interim guidance in February 1996.
Appendix C--Policy for the Signing and Numbering of Future Interstate
Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS Designation Act of 1995
or Designated under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)
The policy for signing and numbering of future Interstate routes
was issued as an interim policy in August 1996 and revised in December
1996. Criteria are included to establish eligibility for consideration
of signing of future routes and are supplementary to normal signing
location, design, construction, and wording requirements.
Appendix D--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Modifications
to the National Highway System
The criteria for modifications of the National Highway System were
issued as interim guidance in February 1996. While essentially the same
as the interim guidance, several sections are being expanded for
clarification.
For ease of reference, the following table is provided to assist
the user in locating section and paragraph changes made in this
rulemaking:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Section New Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
470.101................................... 470.101 revised.
470.103(a)................................ 470.103 introductory
paragraph.
70.103(b):................................ 470.103 terms revised:
Urban area................................ Removed.
Rural area................................ Removed.
Public road............................... Removed.
Rural arterial routes..................... Removed.
Rural major collector routes.............. Removed.
Urban arterial routes..................... Removed.
Appropriate local officials............... Responsible local officials.
Governor.................................. Governor.
Metropolitan planning organization........ Metropolitan planning
organization.
Control area.............................. Removed.
None...................................... Consultation.
None...................................... Cooperation.
None...................................... Coordination.
None...................................... Federal-aid highway systems.
None...................................... Federal-aid highways.
None...................................... State.
470.105(a)................................ 470.107(a) revised.
470.105 (b)-(d)........................... Removed.
470.107 (a)-(b)........................... 470.105(a)-(b) revised.
470.107(c)................................ 470.109(a)-(e) revised.
470.107(d)................................ 470.107(a)-(b) revised.
470.107 (e)-(h)........................... Removed.
470.109................................... 470.111 and 470.113.
470.111................................... Removed.
470.113................................... 470.109.
470.115................................... 470.115.
470.117................................... Removed.
Appendices A, B, and C.................... Removed.
None...................................... Appendices A, B, C, and D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Because the amendments to this regulation are statutorily mandated,
incorporate existing policy, or essentially document well-established
procedures, requirements or practices, the FHWA finds that prior notice
and opportunity for comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B). The States have operated under the basic policies covered
by this regulation for many years. The amendments being made to this
regulation were specifically designed to simplify administrative
procedures, minimize regulatory burdens, and provide flexibility for
accomplishing required system actions. Therefore, the FHWA is not
exercising its discretion in a way that could be substantially affected
by public comment.
Since passage of the NHS Act, the FHWA developed and implemented
policies for modifying the NHS. The policies included in the interim
final rule for modifying the NHS are essentially the same. The criteria
for modifying the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 have been
virtually identical since 1986. The nonregulatory guidance for
numbering and signing future Interstate routes, although recently
issued, was developed through a consultative process. Only a few States
have expressed an interest in such signing.
For these reasons, the FHWA has also determined that prior notice
and opportunity for comment are not required under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, as it is not
anticipated that such action would result in the receipt of essential
information. Issuance of the amended regulation as an interim final
rule will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on any
aspect of the amended regulation and the nonregulatory appendices.
Depending on the nature and extent of the comments, the FHWA will
consider subsequent revisions to either the regulation or the
nonregulatory appendices. The FHWA will also publish a notice in the
Federal Register to summarize any comments received and any actions the
agency has taken, or plans to take, with regard to the comments.
Therefore, the FHWA is proceeding directly to an interim final rule,
which is effective 30 days from its date of publication.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is neither a significant
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 nor significant
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. This rule establishes procedures for State highway agencies
to request modifications of established Federal-aid highway systems.
This interim final rule provides States with criteria for proposed
system modifications, route numbering, and signing. This rule will not
result in a major increase in costs or prices for State or local
governments. The rule will not have an adverse effect on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability to
compete with foreign enterprises. It is anticipated that the economic
impact of this rulemaking will
[[Page 33354]]
be minimal, as the rule is not altering the amount of Federal-aid funds
made available, nor is it substantially changing the administrative
processing requirements for State transportation agencies. Therefore, a
full regulatory evaluation is not required. Nevertheless, the FHWA is
providing an opportunity for interested parties to comment upon the
possible economic consequences of the rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.L. 96-354, 5
U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has preliminarily determined that this
rulemaking will have virtually no economic impact on small entities.
The rulemaking is directed toward State governments. Although the
regulation being amended continues to require the States to cooperate
with responsible local officials in conjunction with certain highway
classification and system actions, the States will bear the
responsibility for initiating and completing this cooperation. The
States will coordinate with responsible local officials through
existing organizational mechanisms as a part of the ongoing statewide
and metropolitan transportation planning processes required by 23 CFR
part 450. Therefore, no unique or special arrangements are required,
nor expected, to accomplish the necessary cooperation.
The regulation clarifies, streamlines, and simplifies Federal-aid
highway systems policies for modification and management of the
systems. The primary impact of this rulemaking action, therefore, will
be a reduction in the administrative burden on the States associated
with Federal-aid system actions. Based on this evaluation, the FHWA
hereby certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been
determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The
purpose of this rule is to eliminate many administrative procedures and
recordkeeping requirements related to the Federal-aid highway system
actions that have been in place for many years, and to limit State
actions to those specifically required by Federal statute. The rule
will reduce costs and burdens on the States. It will not affect the
ability of the States to discharge traditional State governmental
functions. The rule relies on existing mechanisms--those established
through the statewide and metropolitan planning processes for the
involvement of local and metropolitan agencies in the management of the
Federal-aid highway systems. An overriding objective of the FHWA in
developing this rule is to minimize the regulatory requirements and
rely heavily on nonregulatory guidance in the management of proposed
changes to Federal-aid highway systems.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) concerns the
responsibility of Federal agencies in developing proposed collections
of information. The PRA is designed ``to reduce, minimize, and control
burdens and maximize the practical utility and public benefit of the
information created, collected, disclosed, maintained, used, shared,
and disseminated by or for the Federal Government.'' 23 CFR 1320.1.
Thus, the FHWA has a responsibility to determine if the PRA applies to
this rulemaking proceeding.
For many years, States and State transportation agencies have
operated pursuant to current regulations at 23 CFR part 470 that
contain criteria to request modifications of established Federal-aid
highway systems. Before enactment of the ISTEA, the Federal-aid highway
systems consisted of the Interstate, Primary, Secondary, and Urban
Systems. The ISTEA, however, restructured the Federal-aid highway
systems by rescinding the Federal-aid Primary, Secondary, and Urban
Systems and requiring the establishment of the NHS. The ISTEA also
required a functional reclassification of all public roads and streets
to determine eligibility for inclusion on the NHS and eligibility for
funding under the Surface Transportation Program. Another piece of
legislation, the NHS Act, designated the NHS and authorized the
Secretary to approve any modifications to the NHS. To assist States
with their system modifications, the FHWA previously issued interim
guidance establishing procedures for use by the States in proposing
modifications to the Interstate System and the NHS, and for signing and
numbering routes identified as future parts of the Interstate System.
Thus, the purpose of this interim final rule is to incorporate the
legislative changes mandated by the ISTEA and the NHS Act, as well as
the nonregulatory guidance material that the FHWA issued previously to
assist States in their efforts to modify the Federal-aid highway
systems. Only a few States have indicated that they are interested in
such signing.
The interim final rule specifies that States and State
transportation agencies can submit proposals for modifying the Federal-
aid highway systems by submitting certain information to the FHWA and,
in the case of Interstate route numbering proposals, to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials route
numbering committee. As indicated above, the FHWA intends to include,
as appendices to the regulation at part 470, nonregulatory guidance
material issued previously by the agency to assist States in their
system modification efforts. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the public
disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government
to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure is not a collection of
information. Thus, the FHWA's consolidation of this nonregulatory
guidance material in the interim final rule does not violate the PRA.
It is also important to note that, under the PRA, a State agency is
not required to obtain approval of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to undertake on its own initiative to collect information.
However, in instances where the State agency's collection of
information is being ``conducted or sponsored'' by a Federal agency,
then the Federal agency would need to obtain OMB approval for any
collection of information. Thus, another inquiry to be made in this
rulemaking would be whether a State's proposal to modify the Federal-
aid highway system is a collection of information ``conducted or
sponsored'' by the FHWA. The FHWA believes that it is not.
First, under 49 CFR 1320.3(d), a collection of information
undertaken by a recipient (here the State) of a Federal grant is
considered to be ``conducted or sponsored'' by an agency only if: (1)
The recipient of a grant is conducting the collection of information at
the specific request of the agency; or (2) the terms and conditions of
the grant require specific approval by the agency of the collection of
information or collection procedures. In this interim final rule,
[[Page 33355]]
the FHWA is not requesting the States to collect information to modify
the Federal-aid highway systems. Nor is the State's submittal of a
proposed modification a prerequisite for a Federal grant. Presumably,
the FHWA must first approve a State's proposal to modify the Federal-
aid highway systems before a route can be added to the Interstate
System or the NHS, but the FHWA is not requesting this collection of
information. States that seek to modify the Interstate System and the
NHS can follow the criteria set forth at part 470 to accomplish
requested system modifications. This interim final rule merely provides
the States with revised regulations to assist them in their efforts.
Second, the FHWA does not believe that this action constitutes a
collection of information under the PRA because the interim final rule
does not impose requirements on ``ten or more persons.'' 49 CFR
1320.(3)(c). The phrase ``ten or more persons'' refers to the persons
to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency within
any 12-month period, and to any independent entities to which the
initial addressee may reasonably be expected to transmit the collection
of information during that period, including independent State,
territorial, tribal or local entities and separately incorporated
subsidiaries or affiliates. 49 CFR 1320.3(c)(4). Because the FHWA does
not expect to address more than 10 requests by States to modify route
designations during any 12-month period, it does not constitute a
``collection of information'' covered by the PRA.
Accordingly, the FHWA is amending its regulation on Federal-aid
highway systems to incorporate statutory changes made by the ISTEA and
the NHS Act, and to include in this amended regulation all relevant
appendices of nonregulatory guidance previously issued in FHWA policy
memoranda and the ``Federal-aid Policy Guide'' to assist States in
proposing modifications to the Interstate System and the NHS. The
interim final rule will provide States and State transportation
agencies with criteria for proposed system modifications, route
numbering, and signing. This action will also reduce regulatory
requirements, simplify administrative procedures and recordkeeping
requirements, and provide flexibility to accomplish State-requested
system actions.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this section for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined that this action would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification 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 April and October of each year. The RIN 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 470
Grant programs--transportation, Highway planning, Highways and
roads.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 23,
CFR, chapter I, by revising subpart A of part 470 as set forth below.
Issued on: June 11, 1997.
Jane F. Garvey,
Acting Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration.
PART 470--HIGHWAY SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 470 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(2), 103 (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3),
103(f), 134, 135, and 315; and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(2).
Subpart A--[Revised]
2. Subpart A of part 470 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart A--Federal-aid Highway Systems
Sec.
470.101 Purpose.
470.103 Definitions.
470.105 Urban area boundaries and highway functional
classification.
470.107 Federal-aid highway systems.
470.109 System procedures--General.
470.111 Interstate System procedures.
470.113 National Highway System procedures.
470.115 Approval authority.
Appendix A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Interstate
System Designations under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and (b).
Appendix B--Designation of Segments of Section 332(a)(2) Corridors
as Parts of the Interstate System.
Appendix C--Policy for the Signing and Numbering of Future
Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS
Designation Act of 1995 or Designated under 23 U.S.C. 139(b).
Appendix D--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for
Modifications to the National Highway System.
Subpart A--Federal-aid Highway Systems
Sec. 470.101 Purpose.
This part sets forth policies and procedures relating to the
identification of Federal-aid highways, the functional classification
of roads and streets, the designation of urban area boundaries, and the
designation of routes on the Federal-aid highway systems.
Sec. 470.103 Definitions.
Except as otherwise provided in this part, terms defined in 23
U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this part as so defined.
Consultation means that one party confers with another identified
party and, prior to taking action(s), considers that party's views.
Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the
planning, programming and management systems processes work together to
achieve a common goal or objective.
Coordination means the comparison of the transportation plans,
programs, and schedules of one agency with related plans, programs, and
schedules of other agencies or entities with legal standing, and
adjustment of plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general
consistency.
Federal-aid highway systems means the National Highway System and
the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways (the ``Interstate System'').
Federal-aid highways means highways on the Federal-aid highway
systems and all other public roads not classified as local roads or
rural minor collectors.
Governor means the chief executive of the State and includes the
Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the forum for
cooperative transportation decisionmaking for the metropolitan planning
area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process required
by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305 must be carried out.
Responsible local officials means--
(1) In urbanized areas, principal elected officials of general
purpose local governments acting through the Metropolitan Planning
Organization designated by the Governor, or
(2) In rural areas and urban areas not within any urbanized area,
principal elected officials of general purpose local governments.
State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, or, for purposes of functional classification of highways,
the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the
[[Page 33356]]
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.
Sec. 470.105 Urban area boundaries and highway functional
classification.
(a) Urban area boundaries. Routes on the Federal-aid highway
systems may be designated in both rural and urban areas. Guidance for
determining the boundaries of urbanized and nonurbanized urban areas is
provided in the ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide,'' Chapter 4 [G 4063.0],
dated December 9, 1991.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``Federal-aid Policy Guide'' is available for inspection
and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Highway Functional Classification. (1) The State transportation
agency shall have the primary responsibility for developing and
updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and
urban areas to determine functional usage of the existing roads and
streets. Guidance criteria and procedures are provided in the FHWA
publication ``Highway Functional Classification--Concepts, Criteria and
Procedures.'' 2 The State shall cooperate with responsible
local officials, or appropriate Federal agency in the case of areas
under Federal jurisdiction, in developing and updating the functional
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This publication, revised in March 1989, is available on
request to the FHWA, Office of Environment and Planning, HEP-10, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The results of the functional classification shall be mapped
and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval
and when approved shall serve as the official record for Federal-aid
highways and the basis for designation of the National Highway System.
Sec. 470.107 Federal-aid highway systems.
(a) Interstate System. (1) The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System
of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate System) shall consist of
routes of highest importance to the Nation, built to the uniform
geometric and construction standards of 23 U.S.C. 109(h), which
connect, as directly as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas,
cities, and industrial centers, including important routes into,
through, and around urban areas, serve the national defense and, to the
greatest extent possible, connect at suitable border points with routes
of continental importance in Canada and Mexico.
(2) The portion of the Interstate System designated under 23 U.S.C.
103 (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) shall not exceed 69,230 kilometers
(43,000 miles). Additional Interstate System segments are permitted
under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and (c) and section
1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, as amended.
(b) National Highway System. (1) The National Highway System shall
consist of interconnected urban and rural principal arterials and
highways (including toll facilities) which serve major population
centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public
transportation facilities, other intermodal transportation facilities
and other major travel destinations; meet national defense
requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. All routes
on the Interstate System are a part of the National Highway System.
(2) The National Highway System shall not exceed 286,983 kilometers
(178,250 miles).
(3) The National Highway System shall include the Strategic Highway
Corridor Network (STRAHNET) and its highway connectors to major
military installations, as designated by the Administrator in
consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and the States. The
STRAHNET includes highways which are important to the United States
strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity,
and emergency capabilities for the movement of personnel, materials,
and equipment in both peace time and war time.
(4) The National Highway System shall include all high priority
corridors identified in section 1105(c) of the ISTEA.
Sec. 470.109 System procedures--General.
(a) The State transportation agency, in consultation with
responsible local officials, shall have the responsibility for
proposing to the Federal Highway Administration all official actions
regarding the designation, or revision, of the Federal-aid highway
systems.
(b) The routes of the Federal-aid highway systems shall be proposed
by coordinated action of the State transportation agencies where the
routes involve State-line connections.
(c) The designation of routes on the Federal-aid highway systems
shall be in accordance with the planning process required, pursuant to
the provisions at 23 U.S.C. 135, and, in urbanized areas, the
provisions at 23 U.S.C. 134(a). The State shall cooperate with local
and regional officials. In urbanized areas, the local officials shall
act through the metropolitan planning organizations designated for such
areas under 23 U.S.C. 134.
(d) In areas under Federal jurisdiction, the designation of routes
on the Federal-aid highway systems shall be coordinated with the
appropriate Federal agency.
Sec. 470.111 Interstate System procedures.
(a) Proposals for system actions on the Interstate System shall
include a route description and a statement of justification. Proposals
shall also include statements regarding coordination with adjoining
States on State-line connections, with responsible local officials, and
with officials of areas under Federal jurisdiction.
(b) Proposals for Interstate or future Interstate designation under
23 U.S.C. 139(a) or (b), as logical additions or connections, shall
consider the criteria contained in appendix A of this subpart. For
designation as a part of the Interstate system, 23 U.S.C. 139(a)
requires that a highway meet all the standards of a highway on the
Interstate System, be a logical addition or connection to the
Interstate System, and have the affirmative recommendation of the State
or States involved. For designation as a future part of the Interstate
System, 23 U.S.C. 139(b) requires that a highway be a logical addition
or connection to the Interstate System, have the affirmative
recommendation of the State or States involved, and have the written
agreement of the State or States involved that such highway will be
constructed to meet all the standards of a highway on the Interstate
System within twelve years of the date of the agreement between the
FHWA Administrator and the State or States involved. Such highways must
also be on the National Highway System.
(c) Proposals for Interstate designation under 23 U.S.C. 139(c)
shall pertain only to Alaska or Puerto Rico. For designation as parts
of the Interstate System, 23 U.S.C. 139(c) requires that highway
segments be in States which have no Interstate System; be logical
components to a system serving the State's principal cities, national
defense needs and military installations, and traffic generated by
rail, water, and air transportation modes; and have been constructed to
the geometric and construction standards adequate for current and
probable future traffic demands and the needs of the locality of the
segment. Such highways must also be on the National Highway System.
(d) Routes proposed for Interstate designation under section
332(a)(2) of the NHS Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act) shall be
constructed to Interstate standards and connect to the Interstate
[[Page 33357]]
System. Proposals shall consider the criteria contained in appendix B
of this subpart.
(e) Proposals for Interstate route numbering shall be submitted by
the State transportation agency to the Route Numbering Committee of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
(f) Signing of corridors federally designated as future Interstate
routes can follow the criteria contained in appendix C of this subpart.
No law, rule, regulation, map, document, or other record of the United
States, or of any State or political subdivision thereof, shall refer
to any highway under 23 U.S.C. 139, nor shall any such highway be
signed or marked, as a highway on the Interstate System until such time
as such highway is constructed to the geometric and construction
standards for the Interstate System and has been designated as a part
of the Interstate System.
Sec. 470.113 National Highway System procedures.
(a) Proposals for system actions on the National Highway System
shall include a route description, a statement of justification, and
statements of coordination with adjoining States on State-line
connections, with responsible local officials, and with officials of
areas under Federal jurisdiction.
(b) Proposed modifications to the National Highway System shall
enhance the national transportation characteristics of the National
Highway System and shall follow the criteria listed in Sec. 470.107.
Proposals shall also consider the criteria contained in appendix D of
this subpart.
Sec. 470.115 Approval authority.
(a) The Federal Highway Administrator will approve Federal-aid
highway system actions involving the designation, or revision, of
routes on the Interstate System, including route numbers, future
Interstate routes, and routes on the National Highway System.
(b) The Federal Highway Administrator will approve functional
classification actions.
Appendix A to Part 470, Subpart A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating
Requests for Interstate System Designations Under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and
(b)
Section 139 (a) and (b), of title 23, U.S.C., permits States to
request the designation of National Highway System routes as parts
or future parts of the Interstate System. The FHWA Administrator may
approve such a request if the route is a logical addition or
connection to the Interstate System and has been, or will be,
constructed to meet Interstate standards. The following are the
general criteria to be used to evaluate 23 U.S.C. 139 requests for
Interstate System designations.
1. The proposed route should be of sufficient length to serve
long-distance Interstate travel, such as connecting routes between
principal metropolitan cities or industrial centers important to
national defense and economic development.
2. The proposed route should not duplicate other Interstate
routes. It should serve Interstate traffic movement not provided by
another Interstate route.
3. The proposed route should directly serve major highway
traffic generators. The term ``major highway traffic generator''
means either an urbanized area with a population over 100,000 or a
similar major concentrated land use activity that produces and
attracts long-distance Interstate and statewide travel of persons
and goods. Typical examples of similar major concentrated land use
activities would include a principal industrial complex, government
center, military installation, or transportation terminal.
4. The proposed route should connect to the Interstate System at
each end, with the exception of Interstate routes that connect with
continental routes at an international border, or terminate in a
``major highway traffic generator'' that is not served by another
Interstate route. In the latter case, the terminus of the Interstate
route should connect to routes of the National Highway System that
will adequately handle the traffic. The proposed route also must be
functionally classified as a principal arterial and be a part of the
National Highway System system.
5. The proposed route must meet all the current geometric and
safety standards criteria as set forth in 23 CFR part 625 for
highways on the Interstate System, or a formal agreement to
construct the route to such standards within 12 years must be
executed between the State(s) and the Federal Highway
Administration. Any proposed exceptions to the standards shall be
approved at the time of designation.
6. A route being proposed for designation under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)
must have an approved final environmental document (including, if
required, a 49 U.S.C. 303(c) [Section 4(f)] approval) covering the
route and project action must be ready to proceed with design at the
time of designation. Routes constructed to Interstate standards are
not necessarily logical additions to the Interstate System unless
they clearly meet all of the above criteria.
Appendix B to Part 470, Subpart A--Designation of Segments of Section
332(a)(2) Corridors as Parts of the Interstate System
The following guidance is comparable to current procedures for
Interstate System designation requests under 23 U.S.C. 139(a). All
Interstate System additions must be approved by the Federal Highway
Administrator. The provisions of section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Act
have also been incorporated into the ISTEA as section 1105(e)(5)(A).
1. The request must be submitted through the appropriate FHWA
Division and Regional Offices to the Associate Administrator for
Program Development (HEP-10). Comments and recommendations by the
division and regional offices are requested.
2. The State DOT secretary (or equivalent) must request that the
route segment be added to the Interstate System. The exact location
and termini must be specified. If the route segment involves more
than one State, each affected State must submit a separate request.
3. The request must provide information to support findings that
the segment (a) is built to Interstate design standards and (b)
connects to the existing Interstate System. The segment should be of
sufficient length to provide substantial service to the travelling
public.
4. The request must also identify and justify any design
exceptions for which approval is requested.
5. Proposed Interstate route numbering for the segment must be
submitted to FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials Route Numbering Committee.
Appendix C to Part 470, Subpart A--Policy for the Signing and Numbering
of Future Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS
Designation Act of 1995 or Designated Under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)
Policy
State transportation agencies are permitted to erect
informational Interstate signs along a federally designated future
Interstate corridor only after the specific route location has been
established for the route to be constructed to Interstate design
standards.
Conditions
1. The corridor must have been designated a future part of the
Interstate System under section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Designation Act
of 1995 or 23 U.S.C. 139(b).
2. The specific route location to appropriate termini must have
received Federal Highway (FHWA) environmental clearance. Where FHWA
environmental clearance is not required or Interstate standards have
been met, the route location must have been publicly announced by
the State.
3. Numbering of future Interstate route segments must be
coordinated with affected States and be approved by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the
FHWA at Headquarters. Short portions of a multistate corridor may
require use of an interim 3-digit number.
4. The State shall coordinate the location and content of
signing near the State line with the adjacent State.
5. Signing and other identification of a future Interstate route
segment must not indicate, nor imply, that the route is on the
Interstate System.
6. The FHWA Regional Office must confirm in advance that the
above conditions have been met and approve the general locations of
signs.
[[Page 33358]]
Sign Details
1. Signs may not be used to give directions and should be away
from directional signs, particularly at interchanges.
2. An Interstate shield may be located on a green informational
sign of a few words. For example: Future Interstate Corridor or
Future I-00 Corridor.
3. The Interstate shield may not include the word
``Interstate.''
4. The FHWA Division Office must approve the signs as to design,
wording, and detailed location.
Appendix D to Part 470, Subpart A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating
Requests for Modifications to the National Highway System
Section 103(b), of title 23, U.S.C., allows the States to
propose modifications to the National Highway System (NHS) and
authorizes the Secretary to approve such modifications provided that
they meet the criteria established for the NHS and enhance the
characteristics of the NHS. In proposing modifications under 23
U.S.C. 103(b), the States must cooperate with local and regional
officials. In urbanized areas, the local officials must act through
the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) designated for such
areas under 23 U.S.C. 134. The following guidance criteria should be
used by the States to develop proposed modifications to the NHS.
1. Proposed additions to the NHS should be included in either an
adopted State or metropolitan transportation plan or program.
2. Proposed additions should connect at each end with other
routes on the NHS or serve a major traffic generator.
3. Proposals should be developed in consultation with local and
regional officials.
4. Proposals to add routes to the NHS should include information
on the type of traffic served (i.e., percent of trucks, average trip
length, local, commuter, interregional, interstate) by the route,
the population centers or major traffic generators served by the
route, and how this service compares with existing NHS routes.
5. Proposals should include information on existing and
anticipated needs and any planned improvements to the route.
6. Proposals should include information concerning the possible
effects of adding or deleting a route to or from the NHS might have
on other existing NHS routes that are in close proximity.
7. Proposals to add routes to the NHS should include an
assessment of whether modifications (adjustments or deletions) to
existing NHS routes, which provide similar service, may be
appropriate.
8. Proposed modifications that might affect adjoining States
should be developed in cooperation with those States.
9. Proposed modifications consisting of connections to major
intermodal facilities should be developed using the criteria set
forth below. These criteria were used for identifying initial NHS
connections to major intermodal terminals. The primary criteria are
based on annual passenger volumes, annual freight volumes, or daily
vehicular traffic on one or more principal routes that serve the
intermodal facility. The secondary criteria include factors which
underscore the importance of an intermodal facility within a
specific State.
Primary Criteria
Commercial Aviation Airports
1. Passengers--scheduled commercial service with more than
250,000 annual enplanements.
2. Cargo--100 trucks per day in each direction on the principal
connecting route, or 100,000 tons per year arriving or departing by
highway mode.
Ports
1. Terminals that handle more than 50,000 TEUs (a volumetric
measure of containerized cargo which stands for twenty-foot
equivalent units) per year, or other units measured that would
convert to more than 100 trucks per day in each direction. (Trucks
are defined as large single-unit trucks or combination vehicles
handling freight.)
2. Bulk commodity terminals that handle more than 500,000 tons
per year by highway or 100 trucks per day in each direction on the
principal connecting route. (If no individual terminal handles this
amount of freight, but a cluster of terminals in close proximity to
each other does, then the cluster of terminals could be considered
in meeting the criteria. In such cases, the connecting route might
terminate at a point where the traffic to several terminals begins
to separate.)
3. Passengers--terminals that handle more than 250,000
passengers per year or 1,000 passengers per day for at least 90 days
during the year.
Truck/Rail
1. 50,000 TEUs per year, or 100 trucks per day, in each
direction on the principal connecting route, or other units measured
that would convert to more than 100 trucks per day in each
direction. (Trucks are defined as large single-unit trucks or
combination vehicles carrying freight.)
Pipelines
1. 100 trucks per day in each direction on the principal
connecting route.
Amtrak
1. 100,000 passengers per year (entrainments and detrainments).
Joint Amtrak, intercity bus and public transit terminals should be
considered based on the combined passenger volumes. Likewise, two or
more separate facilities in close proximity should be considered
based on combined passenger volumes.
Intercity Bus
1. 100,000 passengers per year (boardings and deboardings).
Public Transit
1. Stations with park and ride lots with more than 500 vehicle
parking spaces, or 5,000 daily bus or rail passengers, with
significant highway access (i.e., a high percentage of the
passengers arrive by cars and buses using a route that connects to
another NHS route), or a major hub terminal that provides for the
transfer of passengers among several bus routes. (These hubs should
have a significant number of buses using a principal route
connecting with the NHS.)
Ferries
1. Interstate/international--1,000 passengers per day for at
least 90 days during the year. (A ferry which connects two terminals
within the same metropolitan area should be considered as local, not
interstate.)
2. Local--see public transit criteria above.
Secondary Criteria
Any of the following criteria could be used to justify an NHS
connection to an intermodal terminal where there is a significant
highway interface:
1. Intermodal terminals that handle more than 20 percent of
passenger or freight volumes by mode within a State;
2. Intermodal terminals identified either in the Intermodal
Management System or the State and metropolitan transportation plans
as a major facility;
3. Significant investment in, or expansion of, an intermodal
terminal; or
4. Connecting routes targeted by the State, MPO, or others for
investment to address an existing, or anticipated, deficiency as a
result of increased traffic.
Proximate Connections
Intermodal terminals, identified under the secondary criteria
noted above, may not have sufficient highway traffic volumes to
justify an NHS connection to the terminal. States and MPOs should
fully consider whether a direct connection should be identified for
such terminals, or whether being in the proximity (2 to 3 miles) of
an NHS route is sufficient.
[FR Doc. 97-16081 Filed 6-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P