[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32-42]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28236]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 625

[Docket No. FHWA-2019-0030]
RIN 2125-AF88


Design Standards for Highways

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

[[Page 33]]


ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FHWA amends its regulations governing design standards and 
standard specifications applicable to new construction, reconstruction, 
resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and 
rehabilitation projects on the National Highway System (NHS). In 
issuing this final rule, FHWA will allow State departments of 
transportation (State DOT) to adopt procedures or design criteria, as 
approved by FHWA, that enable the State to undertake resurfacing, 
restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on freeways, including 
Interstate highways, without utilizing design exceptions as long as the 
RRR procedures or criteria are met. In addition, FHWA incorporates by 
reference the latest versions of design standards and standard 
specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference and 
removes from its regulations the corresponding outdated or superseded 
versions of these standards and specifications.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 2, 2022. Use of the 
updated standards is required for all NHS projects authorized to 
proceed with design activities on or after February 2, 2023, unless an 
extension is granted for unique or extenuating circumstances.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of February 2, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain other 
publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of December 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Hilton, Office of 
Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements (HICP-10), (202) 924-8618, 
or via email at [email protected], or Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, 
Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-3813, or via email at 
[email protected]. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
est., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    This document, as well as the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
and all comments received, may be viewed online through the Federal 
eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov using the docket number 
listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are also 
available at www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document 
may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's 
website at www.FederalRegister.gov and the Government Publishing 
Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.

Background and Legal Authority

    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 315 and under the authority delegated to FHWA 
in 49 CFR 1.85, FHWA is updating its existing regulations governing 
design standards for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing 
(except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation 
projects on the NHS (including the Interstate System). This rulemaking 
is not expressly required by statute. However, this rulemaking is 
necessary to implement provisions of 23 U.S.C. 109 regarding design 
standards and criteria.
    State DOTs are tasked with preserving the safety and usability of a 
vast network of existing highways. Past FHWA design standards required 
State DOTs to meet new construction standards on freeway RRR projects 
unless a design exception was approved. Recent national research has 
provided a better understanding of the relationship between geometric 
design features and crash frequency and severity. Therefore, to improve 
the efficiency of developing RRR projects on existing freeways, this 
final rule allows State DOTs to adopt procedures or design criteria, as 
approved by FHWA, that enable the State to undertake RRR projects on 
freeways, including Interstate highways, without utilizing design 
exceptions as long as the RRR procedures or criteria are met. This 
final rule also incorporates by reference updated versions of design 
standards and standard specifications previously adopted and 
incorporated by reference under 23 CFR 625.4 and removes the 
corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and 
specifications from the regulations.
    Several of these design standards and standard specifications were 
established by the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Welding Society 
(AWS) and were previously adopted by FHWA through rulemaking. 83 FR 
54876 (November 1, 2018). The new standards or specifications replace 
the previous versions of these standards or specifications and 
represent recent refinements that professional organizations have 
formally accepted. In this final rule, FHWA formally adopts them as 
standards for NHS projects.
    The revisions include adopting the 2018 edition of the AASHTO A 
Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets (Green Book); the AWS 
D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel; the 2018 Interim 
Revisions to the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) 
Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications; the 2019 and 2020 Interim 
Revisions to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports 
for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals; and the 2019 and 
2020 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural 
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. FHWA 
removes the incorporation by reference of the AASHTO Standard 
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and 
Testing and the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 
2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code.
    The adopted standards and specifications apply to all projects on 
the NHS (including the Interstate System). FHWA encourages the use of 
flexibility and a context-sensitive approach to consider a full range 
of project and user needs and the impacts to the community and natural 
and human environment. These design standards provide a range of 
acceptable values for highway features, allowing for flexibility that 
best suits the desires of the community while satisfying the purpose 
for the project and needs of its users.
    State DOTs and local agencies should select design values based on 
factors including the context of the facility, needs of all project 
users, safety, mobility, human and natural environmental impacts, and 
project costs. For most situations, there is sufficient flexibility 
within the range of acceptable values to achieve a balanced design. 
However, when this is not possible, a design exception may be 
appropriate. Since 1985, FHWA has designated the criteria that have the 
most impact on roadway safety and operations as ``controlling 
criteria.'' 81 FR 27187 (May 5, 2016). State and local agencies may 
consider designs that deviate from the design standards when warranted 
based on the conditions, context, and consequences of the proposed 
projects. FHWA encourages State DOTs and local agencies to document 
design decisionmaking, particularly when standards cannot be met. 
Additional information on FHWA's adopted design standards and design 
exceptions is available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards.

Statement of the Problem, Regulatory History and Next Steps

    FHWA published a NPRM on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 74934), seeking 
public comment on proposed

[[Page 34]]

revisions to its regulations at 23 CFR part 625 governing design 
standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction, 
reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), 
restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS. Older versions of 
documents incorporated by reference needed to be updated, and more 
efficient procedures for the development of RRR projects on existing 
freeways are needed. FHWA also requested public comments and data on a 
draft economic analysis summarized in the preamble to the proposed 
rule. FHWA received 18 public comment submissions but no data related 
to the economic analysis. Commenters included several State DOTs, 
industry associations, associations of State and local officials, and 
individuals. After carefully considering the comments received in 
response to the NPRM, FHWA is promulgating final regulations with minor 
changes from the proposed regulatory text based on the comments 
received.
    While FHWA is promulgating these final regulations, FHWA plans to 
consider additional updates to its design standards and standard 
specifications in order to ensure that these regulations reflect 
current best practices for new construction, reconstruction, 
resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects on different 
types of streets and roads on the NHS. For example, FHWA is considering 
whether additional documents should be incorporated by reference and 
whether the design standards should be revised to better facilitate the 
context-sensitive design of streets that safely serve all users. FHWA 
anticipates publishing a Notice and Request for Information to solicit 
public input on a range of questions related to making further changes 
to the Design Standards regulations at 23 CFR part 625.

Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The documents that FHWA is incorporating by reference are 
reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs and 
local agencies carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. These 
documents represent recent refinements that professional organizations 
have formally accepted. The documents are also available for review at 
FHWA Headquarters (HQ) or may be obtained from AASHTO or AWS. The 
specific standards and specifications are summarized in this section of 
the preamble.

AASHTO GDHS-7, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 
7th Edition, 2018

    This document, commonly called the ``Green Book'', contains the 
current design research and practices for highway and street geometric 
design. This edition presents an updated framework for geometric design 
that is more flexible, multimodal, and performance-based than in the 
past. The document provides guidance to engineers and designers who 
strive to develop unique design solutions that meet the needs of all 
highway and street users on a project-by-project basis. The 2018 
edition of the Green Book incorporates the latest research and current 
industry practices and is primarily applicable to new construction and 
reconstruction projects.

AASHTO LRFDMOV-2-I7 Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2018 
Interim Revisions for 2007 2nd Edition, Copyright 2017

    This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Movable 
Highway Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition (2007), which 
provides the specifications for the design of bascule span, swing span, 
and vertical lift bridges. The Interim Revisions contain changes to the 
provisions relating to span locks contained in Section 2: Structural 
Design, parts 2.4.1.2.5 and C2.4.1.2.5, and Section 6: Mechanical 
Design, parts 6.8.1.5.1 and C6.8.1.5.1.

AASHTO LTS-6-I2-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to (2013 Sixth Edition) 
Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, 
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2018

    This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO Standard 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, Sixth Edition (2013), which provides the 
specifications for the design of structural supports for highway signs, 
luminaires, and traffic signals. The Interim Revisions contain changes 
to Section 5: Steel Design regarding unreinforced holes and cutouts 
(part 5.14.6.1), reinforced holes and cutouts (part 5.14.6.2), as well 
as mast-arm-to-pole connections (parts 5.14.7 and C5.14.7). It also 
contains changes to Section 11: Fatigue Design regarding stress range 
(part 11.9.2).

AASHTO LTS-6-I3, 2020 Interim Revisions to (2013 Sixth Edition) 
Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, 
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2019

    This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO Standard 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, Sixth Edition (2013). The Interim Revisions 
contain changes to the weld inspection provisions contained in Section 
5: Steel Design, parts 5.15.5 and C5.15.5.

AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I3-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to (2015 First Edition) 
LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, 
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2018

    This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO LRFD 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals which provides the specifications for the design of 
structural supports for highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals 
using Load and Resistance Factor Design. The Interim Revisions contain 
changes to the provisions contained in Section 5: Steel Design 
regarding unreinforced and reinforced holes and cutouts (part 5.6.6.1) 
and mast-arm-to-pole connections (part 5.6.7). It also contains changes 
to Section 11: Fatigue Design regarding stress range (part 11.9.2).

AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I4, 2020 Interim Revisions to (2015 First Edition) 
LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, 
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, Copyright 2019

    This document contains interim revisions to the AASHTO LRFD 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals. The Interim Revisions contain changes to the 
discussion of ice loads presented in part C3.7 of Section 3: Loads. It 
also contains changes to the weld inspection provisions contained in 
Section 14: Fabrication, Materials and Detailing, parts 14.4.4.8 and 
C14.4.4.8.

AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel, 23rd Edition, 
Copyright 2015, Including Errata March 2016 (Second Printing)

    This code contains the requirements for fabricating and erecting 
welded steel structures. The code includes basic information on the 
scope and limitations of the code, key definitions, and the major 
responsibilities of the parties involved with steel fabrication. It 
includes requirements for the design of

[[Page 35]]

welded connections composed of tubular, or nontubular, product form 
members. It contains the performance qualification tests required to be 
passed by all welding personnel (welders, welding operators, and tack 
welders) to perform welding in accordance with this code. It also 
includes general fabrication and erection requirements applicable to 
welded steel structures governed by this code, including the 
requirements for base metals, welding consumables, welding technique, 
welded details, material preparation and assembly, workmanship, weld 
repair, and requirements for the welding of studs to structural steel. 
It contains criteria for the qualifications and responsibilities of 
inspectors, acceptance criteria for production welds, and standard 
procedures for performing visual inspection and nondestructive testing 
(NDT). It also includes basic information pertinent to the welded 
modification or repair of existing steel structures.

AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code, 7th Edition, 
Amendment: December 12, 2016

    This code covers welding fabrication requirements applicable to 
welded steel highway bridges. The code is applicable to both shop and 
field fabrication of steel bridges and bridge components. The code is 
to be used in conjunction with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design 
Specifications.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Changes to 23 CFR Part 625

    This section of the preamble discusses the changes to 23 CFR part 
625 that FHWA is making in this final rule. For each section, FHWA 
describes the final rule, explains how, if at all, it differs from the 
proposed change described in the NPRM, and states the reasons for any 
changes from the proposal.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text contained in the 
November 24, 2020, NPRM, FHWA is revising 23 CFR 625.2(b), 625.3(a)(1), 
and 625.4(a)(3) to allow States to adopt procedures or design criteria, 
as approved by FHWA, that would enable the State to undertake RRR work 
on all NHS roadways without utilizing design exceptions as long as the 
RRR procedures or criteria are met. Under 23 U.S.C. 109(a), the 
Secretary must ensure proposed highway projects are designed and 
constructed in accordance with criteria best suited to serve adequately 
the existing and planned future traffic of the highway in a manner that 
is conducive to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance. 
National research, such as that incorporated in the AASHTO Highway 
Safety Manual (www.highwaysafetymanual.org), has provided a better 
understanding of the relationship between geometric design features and 
crash frequency and severity. As a result, the practice of roadway 
design is changing to a more performance-based, flexible approach, 
particularly for RRR projects. This performance-based approach has been 
advanced under several research projects conducted by the National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) as documented in NCHRP 
Report 839: A Performance-Based Highway Geometric Design Process 
(http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/175375.aspx), NCHRP Report 785: 
Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 
(http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171431.aspx), and NCHRP Report 
876: Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into 
Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects (http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/177914.aspx). Rather than focusing solely on 
meeting dimensional design criteria, RRR projects can be developed 
based on project-specific conditions and existing and expected future 
roadway performance. State DOTs can make the best use of limited 
resources by developing RRR projects on all classes of roadways, 
including freeways, to maximize the safety and operational benefit of 
the overall transportation network.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is revising 
Sec.  625.3(a)(1) in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1), as amended by 
section 1404(a) of the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
(FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94).\1\ Revisions to Sec.  625.3(a)(1) include 
changing the factors to be considered by design and construction 
standards for highways on the NHS from optional to mandatory 
consideration, and the addition of a new factor to consider--the cost 
savings that can be achieved by utilizing flexibility that exists in 
current design guidance and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1), design and construction standards 
for highways on the NHS shall consider the constructed and natural 
environment of the area; the environmental, scenic, aesthetic, 
historic, community, and preservation impacts of the activity; cost 
savings by utilizing flexibility that exists in current design 
guidance and regulations; and access for other modes of 
transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is adding new 
paragraph (a)(3) to Sec.  625.3 to incorporate a long-standing 
exception to the Interstate design standards for Alaska and Puerto 
Rico, found in 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(1)(B)(ii).
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is adding new 
paragraph (a)(4) to Sec.  625.3 to incorporate the provisions of FAST 
Act section 1404(b) that allow, if certain conditions are met, a local 
jurisdiction that is a direct recipient of Federal funds to design a 
project using a roadway design publication that is different from the 
roadway design publication used by the State in which the local 
jurisdiction resides. One of the statutory requirements is that the 
roadway design publication must be recognized by FHWA. For the purpose 
of implementing section 1404(b), the design publications that FHWA 
currently recognizes are those listed in either the FHWA Memorandum 
dated August 20, 2013, regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design 
Flexibility (available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility.cfm) or the related 
Questions and Answers (Q&As) (available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility_qa.cfm).
    Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made to add ``to 
use'', which was inadvertently omitted from the proposed regulatory 
text in 23 CFR 625.3(f)(2). FHWA establishes, in paragraph (f)(2) as 
redesignated, a process allowing a programmatic exception for the 
limited purpose of allowing States to use a more recent edition of a 
standard or specification adopted in Sec.  625.4(d). A programmatic 
exception, if approved by FHWA, would enable a State to adopt a more 
recent refinement to a standard or specification than FHWA has 
incorporated by reference in its regulations. FHWA retains approval for 
such a programmatic exception at the appropriate HQs program office to 
ensure that the Agency is satisfied that interim implementation of a 
new edition is in the public interest. In addition, consistent with the 
proposed regulatory text, FHWA is revising Sec.  625.3(f)(1)(i), as 
redesignated, to clarify that the provisions governing project 
exceptions only apply to projects on the NHS because States may develop 
their own standards for projects not on the NHS under Sec.  625.3(a)(2) 
and 23 U.S.C. 109(o).
    As discussed below, in Sec.  625.4, FHWA is incorporating by 
reference the updated versions of design standards and standard 
specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference, and 
removing the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of

[[Page 36]]

these standards and specifications. In addition, FHWA is removing one 
previously adopted specification and adding one new specification.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  625.4(a)(1), 
FHWA is removing the edition and date from the AASHTO A Policy on 
Geometric Design Highways and Streets because the edition and date are 
more properly included in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  625.4(a)(3), 
FHWA is focusing on statewide procedures and design criteria because 
under risk-based stewardship and oversight, design plans for individual 
RRR projects are typically delegated to the State. In addition, FHWA 
clarifies that consistent with current practice, if a State does not 
adopt design procedures or criteria for RRR projects as approved by 
FHWA, the geometric standards listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall 
apply.
    Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made based on comments 
received pertaining to Sec.  625.4(b)(6). For consistency with other 
citations in this section, FHWA is inserting ``AWS'' in front of the 
name of the referenced document and removing the edition and date 
because they are more properly included in referenced paragraph (d) of 
this section.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  625.4(b)(7), 
FHWA is inserting ``AASHTO'' in front of the name of the two documents 
incorporated by reference for clarity.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  625.4(b)(9) 
and Sec.  625.4(d)(2)(i), FHWA is incorporating a new reference to the 
AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel because many 
projects require welding of miscellaneous metal components for items 
such as light poles, sign supports, and railings. FHWA adopts minimum 
design standards to ensure the safety of the transportation 
infrastructure by ensuring all fabrication and manufacturing processes 
are performed to an acceptable standard. For instance, the AASHTO/AWS 
D1.5/D1.5M Bridge Welding Code is a minimum standard to ensure all 
steel bridges are welded to a standard that covers welding consumables, 
welding procedure requirements, qualification requirements, personal 
requirements, inspection and acceptance criteria. However, numerous 
transportation products are not covered by the Bridge Welding Code 
including light poles, high mast towers, sign structures, guard rail 
systems, and even pedestrian bridges. Because these other product types 
are not covered by the Bridge Welding Code, and because they are in or 
over the right-of-way, they should be fabricated or manufactured to a 
minimum design standard, and FHWA adopts the AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 
Structural Welding Code--Steel.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  625.4(c)(2) 
and (d)(1)(x), FHWA is deleting the reference to the AASHTO Standard 
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and 
Testing (described as ``Transportation Materials'' in the existing 
regulatory text). This AASHTO publication covers a broad range of 
material specifications and testing procedures. While these standards 
represent effective, nationally recognized practices, adherence to 
these standards is not mandatory in all circumstances. Removal of these 
standards from the incorporation by reference is meant to clarify that 
use of these standards is not a mandatory requirement as a design 
standard for highways covered in part 625. Some of these material 
specifications and testing procedures remain individually incorporated 
by reference in regulations found in other parts of this title.
    Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made based on a 
comment received pertaining to Sec.  625.4(d)(1). FHWA is updating the 
address and contact information for AASHTO to ``American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 555 12th Street 
NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, 1-800-231-3475, https://store.transportation.org.''.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  
625.4(d)(1)(i), FHWA is adopting the 2018 edition of the AASHTO 
publication, A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets (Green 
Book), replacing the 2011 edition. The 2018 Green Book supports efforts 
to develop Complete Streets (https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets) by emphasizing the need to utilize a flexible 
design approach to balance the needs of all users and modes of travel. 
It expands project context categories from two to five--adding rural 
town, suburban, and urban core to the previous contexts of urban and 
rural. While the 2018 Green Book is the adopted standard for NHS 
highways, public entities may wish to also reference other documents to 
inform the planning and design process, such as the Urban Street Design 
Guide published by the National Association of City Transportation 
Officials, the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 
Pedestrian Facilities and Guide for the Development of Bicycle 
Facilities, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Designing 
Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. These and 
other publications can support public entities in developing 
transportation projects that incorporate safe and convenient walking 
and bicycling facilities. Such projects improve safety for all modes, 
create more equitable access to transportation, and combat climate 
change.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Expand and Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian 
Infrastructure, available at https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Expand-and-Improve-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 Green Book also better describes the various types of 
projects--new construction, reconstruction, and projects on existing 
roads where the basic road type is unchanged--and provides design 
flexibility for each project type. This third project type is similar 
to what historically have been referred to as RRR projects. FHWA 
continues to use the term RRR in part 625 to be consistent with 
language in title 23 of the U.S.C. Although AASHTO does not define the 
phrase ``change in basic road type,'' FHWA generally interprets this 
phrase to include projects that change the general geometric character 
of a highway, such as widening to provide additional through motor 
vehicle lanes, widening to add a raised or depressed median where none 
currently exists, and projects that substantially modify horizontal or 
vertical alignments. Road changes that are accomplished with no, or 
only minimal, widening, such as lane reconfigurations (road diets), 
adding turn lanes, adding channelizing islands, or adding median curbs 
for access management are not considered a ``change in the basic road 
type.'' See 85 FR at 74937. In addition, for the purposes of 
determining geometric design criteria when applying the 2018 Green 
Book, full-depth pavement replacement projects that retain existing 
geometrics are not considered a ``change in the basic road type.'' The 
2018 Green Book favors a performance-based approach for considering the 
effects of geometric design decisions. Under a performance-based design 
approach, the scope of geometric improvements for projects on existing 
roads that retain the existing basic road type should be driven by past 
safety and operational performance and predicted future performance for 
all modes of transportation. Consistent with 23 U.S.C. 109(n), RRR 
projects must preserve and extend the service life of

[[Page 37]]

the existing road and enhance highway safety.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  
625.4(d)(1)(vi), FHWA is incorporating by reference the 2018 Interim 
Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design 
Specifications. These standards are applicable to the design of bridge 
spans, mechanical systems (motors, hydraulics, etc.), electrical 
systems, and bridge protection systems for movable highway bridges. 
Changes in the 2018 Interim Revisions reflect the latest research, 
developments, and specifications promulgated by AASHTO and include 
important updates to the provisions for the mechanical and structural 
design requirements for span lock devices.
    Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made to relocate the 
incorporation by reference of AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code 
from Sec.  625.4(d)(1)(vii) to (d)(2)(iii). While reviewing a comment 
suggesting incorporating by reference the 2020 edition of AASHTO/AWS 
D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code, FHWA found that while the 2020 edition 
was available on the AWS website, it was not available on the AASHTO 
website. It has since been posted to the AASHTO website. Because 
updates of the full document, which are generally published every 5 
years, are available from the AWS Bookstore, FHWA is reserving Sec.  
625.4(d)(1)(vii) for future use and moving the incorporation by 
reference of the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code to Sec.  
625.4(d)(2)(iii). Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, FHWA is 
deleting the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-
AMD1, Bridge Welding Code, previously adopted in Sec.  
625.4(d)(1)(vii)(A). This interim revision was provided by AASHTO to 
owners and fabricators for informational purposes only to alert them to 
proposed revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2015 Bridge Welding 
Code. The interim revisions can be used, but FHWA is not retaining them 
as a minimum design standard.
    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, in Sec.  
625.4(d)(1)(viii), FHWA is incorporating the 2019 and 2020 Interim 
Revisions to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports 
for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. In Sec.  
625.4(d)(1)(ix), FHWA is incorporating the 2019 and 2020 Interim 
Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for 
Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. These standards are 
applicable to the structural design of supports for highway signs, 
luminaires, and traffic signals. They are intended to serve as a 
standard and guide for the design, fabrication, and erection of these 
types of supports. Changes in the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions to 
both publications reflect the latest research, developments, and 
specifications promulgated by AASHTO and address items such as 
providing updated dimensional and detailing requirements for certain 
support connections to control fatigue and providing updated 
requirements on the testing of welds in certain connections.
    Use of the updated standards is required for all NHS projects 
authorized to proceed with design activities on or after one year 
following the effective date of the final rule, unless an extension is 
granted for unique or extenuating circumstances.

Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the NPRM

    FHWA received 18 public comments in response to the NPRM. 
Commenters included several State DOTs, industry associations, 
associations of State and local officials, and individuals. The 
following summarizes the comments received and FHWA's responses to the 
most significant issues raised in the comments.

Comment

    FHWA received general comments on the NPRM that do not concern 
specific provisions of the rule. Four State DOTs, the American Council 
of Engineering Companies, the National Association of Small Trucking 
Companies, and the American Road & Transportation Builders Association 
expressed general support for the regulatory changes.

Response

    FHWA appreciates the comment.

Comment

    The Delaware DOT expressed support for incorporating by reference 
the updated documents as proposed. They asked FHWA to consider 
eliminating the requirement for standards regarding RRR projects on the 
NHS.

Response

    Under 23 U.S.C. 109(a), the Secretary must ensure proposed highway 
projects are designed and constructed in accordance with criteria best 
suited to serve adequately the existing and planned future traffic of 
the highway in a manner that is conducive to safety, durability, and 
economy of maintenance. FHWA has determined that standards for RRR 
projects on the NHS are necessary to implement this statutory 
requirement as well as the statutory requirement for design criteria 
for the NHS under 23 U.S.C. 109(c) and Congress's intent that any 
project for resurfacing, restoring, or rehabilitating any highway, 
other than a highway access to which is fully controlled, in which 
Federal funds participate shall be constructed in accordance with 
standards to preserve and extend the service life of highways and 
enhance highway safety, as identified in 23 U.S.C. 109(n).

Comment

    The Missouri DOT asked for clarification on the meaning of the text 
in Sec.  625.3(a)(1) that reads ``shall be those approved by the 
Secretary in cooperation with the State DOTs.''

Response

    The cited text mirrors the statutory language found in 23 U.S.C. 
109(b) and (c)(2). The text means that the standards adopted by FHWA 
are developed in conjunction with the State DOTs. Many of the standards 
adopted by FHWA are AASHTO publications that are approved by the State 
DOTs through a balloting process. AASHTO does not publish RRR criteria 
but States may adopt State RRR standards for use on the NHS under 23 
CFR 625.4(a)(3), subject to FHWA approval. In this case, FHWA works 
directly with individual States.

Comment

    The Missouri DOT also suggested that the adoption of the latest 
Interim Revisions for structural supports for highway signs, 
luminaires, and traffic signals in Sec.  625.4(d)(1)(viii)(B) and (C) 
and (d)(1)(ix)(C) and (D) is not necessary because updating their 
standards systemically is time and cost prohibitive, especially when 
failures of poles, mast arms, etc. are not as catastrophic as a bridge 
failure. They believe they have sufficient procedures in place for 
routine maintenance and in-service inspections to prevent eminent 
structural failures.

Response

    General provisions to control fatigue in the design of ancillary 
highway structures were first incorporated by reference into 23 CFR 
part 625 in 2015 (80 FR 61307). The interim revisions adopted here do 
not substantially affect the fatigue design provisions already 
incorporated by reference, and therefore FHWA does not expect these 
updates to be time or cost prohibitive compared to previous 
requirements. No change was made to the final regulatory text.

[[Page 38]]

Comment

    The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) expressed general 
support for the changes and encouraged additional discussion of 23 CFR 
625.3(a)(4) which is conditioned, in part, on whether ``the local 
jurisdiction is a direct recipient of federal funds for the project.'' 
ASCE notes that confusion may arise on projects that utilize multiple 
funding sources and asks whether this provision applies only to 
projects that solely rely on Federal funds, or if it includes projects 
where Federal funds account for a portion of the funding required.

Response

    Section 1404(b) of the FAST Act provides local jurisdictions with 
additional flexibility in the choice of design standards for specific 
projects. Under section 1404(b), a State may allow a local jurisdiction 
to design the project using a roadway design publication that is 
different from the roadway design publication used by the State in 
which the local jurisdiction resides if the following requirements are 
met: (1) The local jurisdiction is a direct recipient of Federal funds 
for the project; (2) the design publication is adopted by the local 
jurisdiction and recognized by FHWA; (3) the design(s) complies with 
all applicable Federal laws and regulations; and (4) projects applying 
the design publication are on a roadway owned by the local jurisdiction 
and not on the Interstate System. For section 1404(b) of the FAST Act 
to apply, the entity must receive any Federal funds directly, such as 
through a Federal grant (e.g., RAISE), not as a pass-through from 
another entity. The project may also utilize non-Federal funds, but any 
Federal funds must be received directly.

Comment

    The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) 
submitted comments on behalf of NACTO, the National League of Cities 
(NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), the Association of 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), the American Public Works 
Association (APWA), and the National Association of Regional Councils 
(NARC). They asked FHWA to replace ``may'' with ``shall'' in Sec.  
625.3(a)(4), in an effort to strengthen the directive to States to 
defer to recognized, adopted city design guidance on non-Interstate, 
locally-owned, directly-Federally-funded projects. They also requested 
that language be added allowing this provision to also apply when local 
jurisdictions receive Federal funds as a subrecipient from a State.

Response

    The requested changes are inconsistent with the statutory language 
contained in the FAST Act. Congress specifically provided States with 
the option--rather than a requirement--to allow local jurisdictions 
that are direct recipients of Federal funds for a project to use a 
publication other than the one used by the State. Congress also limited 
this flexibility to local jurisdictions that are direct recipients of 
Federal funds for the project. Therefore, the requested changes have 
not been made in the final regulatory text.

Comment

    AASHTO expressed general support for the proposed changes while 
requesting a few specific changes.
    Regarding Sec.  625.4(b), AASHTO referenced comments submitted in 
March 2020 regarding the National Bridge Inspection Standards NPRM 
(Federal Docket No. FHWA-2017-0047), recommending that the Manual for 
Bridge Evaluation and the Manual for Bridge Element Inspection be 
removed from their current location in Sec.  650.317 and added to Sec.  
625.4(b). AASHTO recommends this change, noting that [part] 625 is 
updated more frequently than [part] 650 and relocating these two 
references would allow for States to use the most current edition 
earlier.

Response

    Since the documents incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 650 
describe processes related to the inspection and evaluation of in-
service bridges, rather than structural design, their incorporation 
into 23 CFR part 625 would be inconsistent with the purpose of the 
Design Standards regulation, as stated in Sec.  625.1, which is ``To 
designate those standards, policies, and standard specifications that 
are acceptable to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for 
application in the geometric and structural design of highways.'' No 
change was made in the final regulatory text.

Comment

    Regarding Sec.  625.5(b)(9), AASHTO supports the addition of AWS 
D1.1/D1.1M Structural Welding Code--Steel to the list of acceptable 
design standards. They recommended the addition of language stating 
that if there is a conflict between D1.1 or D1.4 and the AASHTO/AWS 
D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code that the Bridge Welding Code take 
precedence.

Response

    The purpose of the Design Standards regulation is to designate 
acceptable design standards and it is not intended to function like a 
contractual vehicle that would set out an order of precedence. Other 
standards incorporated by reference into 23 CFR part 625, such as the 
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, appropriately provide 
direction on where each AWS specification is applicable. No change was 
made in the final regulatory text.

Comment

    Regarding Sec.  625.4(d)(1), AASHTO requested that the contact 
information for AASHTO be changed to ``American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 555 12th Street NW, 
Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, 1-800-231-3475, https://store.transportation.org.''

Response

    The revised contact information has been incorporated in the final 
regulatory text.

Comment

    The Minnesota DOT requested that the regulation be modified to 
allow for a process by which a DOT could request a programmatic 
exception to the design standards adopted for the NHS, primarily the 
AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green 
Book), subject to FHWA approval.

Response

    With respect to design criteria for new construction and 
reconstruction projects, FHWA adopts standards such as the Green Book 
based on the results of the AASHTO committee process as described in 23 
U.S.C. 109(c)(2)(A). The AASHTO committees develop design criteria with 
input from transportation officials across the country and play an 
important role in vetting new research and determining what to include 
in national criteria. The AASHTO balloting process ensures that 
publications issued by AASHTO are supported by a majority of State 
DOTs. FHWA intends to continue following this process without 
individual State programmatic exceptions to deviate from these 
standards. The allowance to develop State RRR standards for all roadway 
classifications should eliminate the need for many project design 
exceptions. No change was made in the final regulatory text.

[[Page 39]]

Comment

    The American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) recommended that 
Sec.  625.3(a)(1)(iii) focus on the use of life-cycle cost analysis by 
modifying the text to read ``Life-cycle cost savings by utilizing 
flexibility that exists in current design guidance and regulations; 
and''.

Response

    The language for Sec.  625.3(a)(1)(iii) matches the statutory text 
found in 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1)(C). The statutory language does not 
preclude using life-cycle cost analysis. FHWA does not intend to limit 
the statutory language regarding cost savings to life-cycle cost 
savings. No change was made in the final regulatory text.

Comment

    One individual recommended against the proposed changes in favor of 
retaining the existing framework to ensure consistency in design of the 
Interstate System, with continued allowance for States to request 
design exceptions when standards cannot be met.

Response

    The AASHTO Interstate Standards, adopted in 23 CFR 625.4(d)(1)(ii), 
have long allowed RRR projects to use the standard in place at the time 
of original construction or incorporation into the Interstate System, 
so FHWA does not anticipate the final rule to substantially effect 
project design on the Interstate System. No change was made to the 
final regulatory text.

Comment

    Another individual requested the following changes to the design 
standards and standard specifications incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  625.4:
    1. Reorganize paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) by part number.
    2. Revise paragraph (b)(6) to be consistent with rest of paragraph 
and reference the full standard title.
    3. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (vii) and (d)(2)(i) to reference 
the 2020 editions of referenced standards.
    4. Revise redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(ii) to reference the 2018 
edition of the AWS D1.4/D1.4M Structural Welding Code--Steel 
Reinforcing Bars.

Response

    Responses to the above comments are provided in the same order:
    1. Paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) will not be rearranged to avoid 
creating cross-reference problems from other parts of the CFR and from 
other documents.
    2. FHWA agrees with this suggestion and has revised the final 
regulatory text.
    3. The 2020 publications were released during development of the 
NPRM. Since FHWA did not propose to adopt them in the NPRM, FHWA will 
not adopt the new versions at this time but will consider them for 
adoption in a future rulemaking. No changes in editions were made to 
the final regulatory text. However, FHWA is reserving Sec.  
625.4(d)(1)(vii) for future use and moving the incorporation of the 
AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code to Sec.  625.4(d)(2)(iii) 
because updates of the full document, which are generally published 
every 5 years, are available from the AWS Bookstore.
    4. The 2018 edition of the AWS D1.4/D1.4M Structural Welding Code--
Steel Reinforcing Bars will be considered in a future rulemaking since 
FHWA did not propose to adopt it in the NPRM. No change was made to the 
final regulatory text.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Rulemaking 
Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. This action 
complies with E.O.s 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation. The 
amendments allow the development of RRR procedures or design criteria 
for projects on freeways, update several industry design standards and 
standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 
CFR part 625, and remove the corresponding outdated or superseded 
versions of these standards and specifications. FHWA anticipates that 
the rule does not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of 
the economy. In addition, the rule does not interfere with any action 
taken or planned by another agency and does not materially alter the 
budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs. The rule also does not raise any novel legal or policy 
issues.
    The following is a summary of the results of the economic analysis 
for this rule. The preamble of the NPRM contained FHWA's economic 
analysis and invited public comment. No comments were received 
regarding the economic analysis or economic impact of this rulemaking. 
FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking is 
minimal. Based on project data captured in FHWA's Fiscal Management 
Information System from October 2014 to September 2018, FHWA estimates 
that an average of 685 projects (totaling $18.5 billion) per year, will 
be eligible to be designed to State-specific RRR standards. FHWA does 
not have data to determine how many of the 685 projects per year do not 
meet the new construction standard through the implementation of design 
exceptions, nor does FHWA have data to demonstrate how many hours State 
DOTs spend developing design exception requests on freeway projects 
undertaken to perform RRR-type work. FHWA requested that State DOTs 
provide comments to the docket if they had any data that would be 
relevant to this analysis. Specifically, FHWA sought data on (1) the 
percentage of RRR-type freeway projects developed by State DOTs that 
utilized a design exception because the project could not meet a new 
construction standard, (2) the average number of employee hours spent 
developing, reviewing, and approving each design exception, (3) the 
average hourly compensation of employees involved with these design 
exception activities, (4) reasons for requesting exceptions 
(operational, safety, resource constraint, innovation, etc.), and (5) 
cost savings associated with the proposed design exception. No data was 
received in response to this request.
    Most State DOTs already have staff dedicated to developing RRR 
standards for non-freeway projects, and any additional staff time 
needed to develop RRR standards for freeways is anticipated to be 
minimal. The NCHRP released Research Report 876 entitled ``Guidelines 
for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, 
Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects,'' which provides 
guidance and assistance to States for developing these standards. See 
http://www.trb.org/NCHRP/Blurbs/177914.aspx. When this final rule is 
implemented, the resulting design of the freeway project is anticipated 
to be the same, but FHWA expects that net cost savings will be realized 
by allowing the States to develop their own standards and eliminate the 
need for many design exceptions.
    FHWA does not anticipate any cost or safety impacts due to removing 
the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and 
Methods of Sampling and Testing from the list of standards incorporated 
by reference. Nor does FHWA anticipate any cost or safety impacts due 
to incorporating by reference the AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015

[[Page 40]]

Structural Welding Code--Steel, as most States are already using this 
standard for the welding of miscellaneous structural steel items. FHWA 
anticipates that the economic impact of updating several industry 
design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated 
by reference is minimal. These updated standards and specifications 
represent recent refinements that professional organizations have 
formally accepted and are widely used for projects off the NHS. For 
these reasons, FHWA finds that the expected economic benefits of the 
final rule will outweigh the estimated costs of the final rule. FHWA 
anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be 
minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small 
entities, such as local governments and businesses. Based on the 
evaluation, FHWA has determined that this action is not anticipated to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The amendments update several industry design standards and 
standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 
CFR part 625. FHWA has determined that the projected impact upon small 
entities that utilize Federal-aid highway program funding for the 
development of highway improvement projects on the NHS is expected to 
be negligible. Therefore, FHWA certifies that the action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    FHWA has determined that this rule does not impose unfunded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). The actions in this final rule will not result 
in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any one 
year (2 U.S.C. 1532). In addition, the definition of ``Federal 
Mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial 
assistance of the type in which State, local, or Tribal governments 
have authority to adjust their participation in the program in 
accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. 
The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    FHWA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined that this 
action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a federalism assessment. FHWA has also determined that 
this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental 
functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. 
This E.O. applies because State and local governments are directly 
affected by the regulation, which is a condition on Federal highway 
funding. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, 
for further information.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, 
sponsor, or require through regulations. FHWA has determined that this 
final rule does not contain collection of information requirements for 
the purposes of the PRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    FHWA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and has 
determined that this action does not have any effect on the quality of 
the human and natural environment because it only makes technical 
changes and incorporates by reference the latest versions of design 
standards and standard specifications previously adopted and 
incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and removes the 
corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and 
specifications. The final rule qualifies as a categorical exclusion to 
NEPA under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of 
regulations, and no unusual circumstances under 23 CFR 771.117(b) are 
present.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FHWA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13175 and anticipates 
that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
Tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian 
Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal law. This final rule 
will not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian Tribal 
governments nor will it have any economic or other impacts on the 
viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact 
statement is not required.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal Agency make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. FHWA has 
determined that this final rule does not raise any environmental 
justice issues.

Regulation Identifier Number

    A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
the spring and fall of each year. The RIN number contained in the 
heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action 
with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 625

    Design standards, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and 
roads, Incorporation by reference.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85 on:
Stephanie Pollack,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends 23 CFR part 625 as 
follows:

PART 625--DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HIGHWAYS

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 625 to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 103, 109, 315, and 402; Sec. 1073 of Pub. 
L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2012; Sec. 1404 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 
Stat. 1312; 49 CFR 1.85.

0
2. Amend Sec.  625.2 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:

[[Page 41]]

Sec.  625.2   Policy.

* * * * *
    (b) Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects 
shall be constructed in accordance with standards that preserve and 
extend the service life of highways and enhance highway safety. * * *
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  625.3 by:
0
a. Revising and republishing paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding subject headings to paragraphs (b) through (e); and
0
c. Revising and republishing paragraph (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  625.3   Application.

    (a) Applicable standards. (1) Design and construction standards for 
new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance 
resurfacing), restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the NHS 
shall be those approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the State 
DOTs. These standards must consider, in addition to the criteria 
described in Sec.  625.2(a), the following:
    (i) The constructed and natural environment of the area;
    (ii) The environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and 
preservation impacts of the activity;
    (iii) Cost savings by utilizing flexibility that exists in current 
design guidance and regulations; and
    (iv) Access for other modes of transportation.
    (2) Federal-aid projects not on the NHS are to be designed, 
constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State laws, 
regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards, and 
construction standards.
    (3) Interstate highways located in Alaska and Puerto Rico shall be 
designed in accordance with such geometric and construction standards 
as are adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the 
needs of the locality of the highway.
    (4) A State may allow a local jurisdiction to design a project 
using a roadway design publication that is different from the roadway 
design publication used by the State in which the local jurisdiction 
resides if--
    (i) The local jurisdiction is a direct recipient of Federal funds 
for the project;
    (ii) The roadway design publication is adopted by the local 
jurisdiction and recognized by FHWA;
    (iii) The design complies with all applicable Federal laws and 
regulations; and
    (iv) The project is located on a roadway that is owned by the local 
jurisdiction and is not part of the Interstate System.
    (b) Deviations from specific minimum values on the NHS. * * *
* * * * *
    (c) Application of other FHWA regulations. * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
    (d) Funding source. * * *
* * * * *
    (e) Very minor or no roadway work. * * *
* * * * *
    (f) Exceptions--(1) Project exception. (i) Approval within the 
delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given on a 
project basis to designs on the NHS which do not conform to the minimum 
criteria as set forth in the standards, policies, and standard 
specifications for:
    (A) Experimental features on projects; and
    (B) Projects where conditions warrant that exceptions be made.
    (ii) The determination to approve a project design that does not 
conform to the minimum criteria is to be made only after due 
consideration is given to all project conditions such as maximum 
service and safety benefits for the dollar invested, compatibility with 
adjacent sections of roadway and the probable time before 
reconstruction of the section due to increased traffic demands or 
changed conditions.
    (2) Programmatic exception. Approval within the delegated authority 
provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given, on a programmatic basis, 
to use a more recent edition of any standard or specification 
incorporated by reference under Sec.  625.4(d).

0
4. Amend Sec.  625.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) and (b)(6) and (7);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(9);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c);
0
d. Revising the last sentence in the paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
e. Revising and republishing paragraphs (d)(1) and (2); and
0
f. Adding a subject heading to paragraph (e).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  625.4   Standards, policies, and standard specifications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO 
(incorporated by reference; see paragraph (d) of this section).
* * * * *
    (3) The geometric design standards for resurfacing, restoration, 
and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS highways shall be the 
procedures or the design criteria established for individual projects, 
groups of projects, or all RRR projects in a State, and as approved by 
FHWA. The RRR design standards shall reflect the consideration of the 
traffic, safety, economic, physical, community, and environmental needs 
of the projects. If a State does not adopt design procedures or 
criteria for RRR projects as approved by FHWA, the standards listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall apply.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) AWS D1.4/D1.4M Structural Welding Code--Reinforcing Steel 
(paragraph (d) of this section).
    (7) AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for 
Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (paragraph (d) of this 
section); or AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for 
Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals (paragraph (d) of this 
section).
* * * * *
    (9) AWS D1.1/D1.1M Structural Welding Code--Steel (paragraph (d) of 
this section).
    (c) Materials. (1) General Materials Requirements, refer to 23 CFR 
part 635, subpart D.
    (2) Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction, refer to 23 CFR 
part 637, subpart B.
    (d) * * * For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, email [email protected] or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), 555 12th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 
20004, 1-800-231-3475, https://store.transportation.org.
    (i) AASHTO GDHS-7, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 
Streets, 7th Edition, 2018.
    (ii) A Policy on Design Standards--Interstate System, May 2016.
    (iii) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, 
2002
    (iv) AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 4th Edition, 
copyright 2017.
    (v) AASHTO LRFD-8, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition, 
2017.
    (vi) AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd 
Edition, 2007, with:
    (A) Interim Revisions, 2008,
    (B) Interim Revisions, 2010,
    (C) Interim Revisions, 2011,

[[Page 42]]

    (D) Interim Revisions, 2012,
    (E) Interim Revisions, 2014,
    (F) Interim Revisions, 2015, and
    (G) Interim Revisions, 2018.
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (viii) AASHTO LTS-6, Standard Specifications for Structural 
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 6th 
Edition, copyright 2013, with:
    (A) AASHTO LTS-6-I1, 2015 Interim Revisions to Standard 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2014,
    (B) AASHTO LTS-6-I2-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to Standard 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2018, and
    (C) AASHTO LTS-6-I3, 2020 Interim Revisions to Standard 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2019.
    (ix) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1, LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports 
for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 1st Edition, 
copyright 2015, with:
    (A) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I1-OL, 2017 Interim Revisions to LRFD 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2016,
    (B) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I2-OL, 2018 Interim Revisions to LRFD 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2017,
    (C) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I3-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to LRFD 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2018, and
    (D) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I4, 2020 Interim Revisions to LRFD 
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, 
and Traffic Signals, copyright 2019.
    (2) American Welding Society (AWS), 8669 NW 36 Street, #130 Miami, 
FL 33166-6672; www.aws.org; or (800) 443-9353 or (305) 443-9353.
    (i) AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code--Steel, 23rd 
Edition, copyright 2015, including Errata March 2016 (second printing).
    (ii) AWS D1.4/D1.4M:2011 Structural Welding Code -Reinforcing 
Steel, 2011.
    (iii) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code, 7th 
Edition, Amendment: December 12, 2016.
    (e) Additional design resources. * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-28236 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P