This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

64388 

Vol. 88, No. 180 

Tuesday, September 19, 2023 

1See, e.g., 2017 Interstate Access Policy, dated 

May 22, 2017 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

programadmin/fraccess.cfm). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 624 

[Docket No. FHWA–2020–0006] 

RIN 2125–AF89 

Interstate System Access 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FHWA proposes and requests 

comments on regulations governing 

changes in access to the Dwight D. 

Eisenhower National System of 

Interstate and Defense Highways 

(Interstate System). As a condition of 

funding for Federal-aid highway 

projects, Federal law prohibits State 

departments of transportation (State 

DOT) from adding any point of access 

to or from the Interstate System without 

the approval of the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary). This 

proposed rule would codify and clarify 

existing policies and practices regarding 

State DOT requests for and FHWA 

approval of changes in access to the 

Interstate System. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 19, 2023. Late 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. In compliance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, FHWA is 

also seeking comments on a new 

information collection. All comments 

relating to the information collection 

requirements should be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and to FHWA at the addresses 

listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 

before October 19, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251; 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590; 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; or 

• Electronically through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments on the proposed 

information collection requirements 

should be submitted to: Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk 

Officer for FHWA. It is requested that 

comments sent to the OMB also be sent 

to the FHWA rulemaking docket 

identified in the heading of this 

document. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket name, 

and docket number (FHWA–2020–0006) 

or Regulatory Identification Number 

(RIN) for this rulemaking (2125–AF89). 

Note that all comments received will be 

posted without change to: https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Clayton Wellman, Office of 

Preconstruction, Construction and 

Pavements (HICP–10), (202) 366–4658, 

or via email at Clayton.Wellman@

dot.gov, or Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, Office 

of the Chief Counsel (HCC–30), (202) 

366–3813, or via email at 

Lev.Gabrilovich@dot.gov. Office hours 

are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

This document and all comments 

received may be viewed online through 

the Federal eRulemaking portal at 

www.regulations.gov using the docket 

number listed above. Electronic retrieval 

help and guidelines are also available at 

https://www.regulations.gov. An 

electronic copy of this document may 

also be downloaded from the Office of 

the Federal Register’s website at 

www.FederalRegister.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at www.GovInfo.gov. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above will be 

considered and will be available for 

examination in the docket at the above 

address. Comments received after the 

comment closing date will be filed in 

the docket and will be considered to the 

extent practicable. In addition to late 

comments, FHWA will also continue to 

file relevant information in the docket 

as it becomes available after the 

comment period closing date and 

interested persons should continue to 

examine the docket for new material. A 

final rule may be published at any time 

after close of the comment period and 

after DOT has had the opportunity to 

review the comments submitted. 

Background and Legal Authority 

It is in the national interest to 

preserve and enhance the Interstate 

System to meet the needs of the 21st 

century by ensuring that it provides the 

highest level of service in terms of safety 

and mobility. Full control of access 

along the Interstate mainline and ramps, 

along with control of access on the 

crossroad at interchanges, is critical to 

such service. Under 23 U.S.C. 111 

(section 111), all agreements between 

the Secretary and State DOTs for the 

construction of projects on the Interstate 

System shall provide that the State will 

not add any points of access to, or exit 

from, the project in addition to those 

approved by the Secretary in the plans 

for such project, without the prior 

approval of the Secretary. Any change to 

an access point can potentially add or 

remove access from the Interstate 

System. Therefore, FHWA historically 

has interpreted the addition of an access 

point to include the addition of a new, 

or modification of an existing, 

interchange or access point along the 

Interstate System.1

The Secretary has delegated authority 

to administer section 111 to the Federal 

Highway Administrator pursuant to 49 

CFR 1.85(a)(1). Section 111(e) allows 

FHWA to delegate to a State DOT 

authority to approve interstate 

justification reports (IJR) pertaining to 

certain changes in access to the 

Interstate System. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64389 

Statement of the Problem 

To facilitate implementation of these 

statutory requirements regarding 

changes in access to the federallyfunded Interstate System, FHWA 

recognizes a need to codify and clarify 

current practices, as set forth in FHWA 

policy, in regulations. When 

considering a request for a change in 

access to the Interstate System, FHWA 

examines the safety, operations, and 

engineering (SO&E) aspects of the 

requested change in access. Historically, 

FHWA has done this by relying on the 

information provided in an IJR 

submitted by the State DOT. The IJR 

contains the project layouts, technical 

analyses, and other information 

supporting the change in access request. 

To date, FHWA has determined whether 

to approve the request based on the 

factors listed in FHWA’s policy on 

Access to the Interstate System (Policy). 

FHWA initially developed and 

published the Policy in October 1990 

(55 FR 42673) due to numerous requests 

by States for additional clarity regarding 

the justification and documentation 

necessary to substantiate proposed 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System. FHWA issued subsequent 

revisions in February 1998, August 

2009, and May 2017. The February 11, 

1998, revision (63 FR 7045) reflected the 

planning requirements of the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991 (ISTEA, Pub. L. 102–240) as 

implemented in 23 CFR part 450, to 

clarify coordination between the access 

request and environmental processes, 

and to update language. FHWA issued 

the 2009 Interstate Access Policy (2009 

Policy), published August 27, 2009 (74 

FR 43743), to reflect the direction 

provided in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU, Pub. L. 

109–59) to clarify the operational and 

safety analysis and assessment of 

impacts that provides the basis for 

proposed changes in access to the 

Interstate System. The 2009 Policy also 

updated language at various locations to 

reference Federal laws, regulations, and 

FHWA policies. Finally, FHWA issued 

the 2017 Interstate Access Policy (2017 

Policy), dated May 22, 2017 (https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/ 

fraccess.cfm), to reduce duplication 

with other project reviews. The 2017 

Policy focused on the technical 

feasibility of any change in access in 

support of FHWA’s determination of 

safety, operational, and engineering 

acceptability. These changes allow State 

DOTs to prepare and submit an IJR 

demonstrating that the change in access 

will not have a significant adverse 

impact on the safety and operation of 

the Interstate facility (which includes 

mainline lanes, existing, new, or 

modified ramps, and ramp intersections 

with crossroad) or on the local street 

network based on both the current and 

the planned future traffic projections 

without including additional 

documentation related to other activities 

in the project development (i.e., 

planning, preliminary design, 

environmental analysis, final design, 

right-of-way acquisition, and 

construction) process. Codifying and 

clarifying current practices under the 

2017 Policy in regulations, as proposed, 

will facilitate implementation of the 

statutory requirements regarding 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System. This process is separate from 

the de-designation of Interstate 

segments that are processed through 

FHWA’s Office of Planning, 

Environment, and Realty, and this 

rulemaking would not preclude dedesignation. 

Interstate System Access Regulation 

Proposed at 23 CFR Part 624 

This proposed rule would establish 

requirements for the justification and 

documentation necessary for a State 

DOT to substantiate proposed changes 

in access to the Interstate System. These 

requirements are consistent with the 

existing policies and practices described 

above. It would facilitate 

decisionmaking regarding proposed 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System in a manner that considers 

safety, operations, and engineering. 

Consistent with 23 U.S.C. 109(a) and (b) 

and 23 U.S.C. 111, new or modified 

points of access for facilities subject to 

a Federal-aid project agreement must be 

approved by FHWA. To facilitate these 

approvals, such new or modified points 

of access would be required to be 

developed in accordance with the 

requirements of this proposed rule. In 

addition, new or modified points of 

access must comply with the 

requirements in 23 CFR part 625, Design 

Standards for Highways. 

FHWA’s decision to approve new or 

revised access points to the Interstate 

System must be supported by 

information justifying and documenting 

the proposed change in access. 

Therefore, the decision to approve a 

request is dependent on the IJR 

demonstrating that the proposed change 

in access will not result in a significant 

adverse impact on the Interstate System 

traffic operations or the safety in the 

project’s area of influence. In addition, 

the proposed access must connect to a 

public road only, provide for all traffic 

movements, be designed to meet or 

exceed current standards, and 

demonstrate that the change in access 

can be clearly and adequately signed. 

This proposed rule would identify the 

requirements for the change in access 

request and documentation necessary to 

substantiate any request that is 

submitted by a State DOT to FHWA for 

approval. Once the State DOT’s analysis 

is completed, it would be required to be 

documented in the form of a standalone 

IJR and submitted by the State DOT to 

FHWA for a SO&E determination. 

FHWA expects that an IJR will be 

clearly written for someone who is not 

familiar with the project, the area, or the 

State. The technical analysis presented 

in the IJR enables FHWA to make an 

informed decision about safety and 

operational impacts of the change in 

access to the Interstate System and make 

the SO&E determination based on those 

impacts. 

The proposed rule would not alter or 

restrict the option for FHWA to delegate 

approval authority for the determination 

of SO&E acceptability of IJRs to a State 

DOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 111(e). Nor 

would it alter a State DOT’s ability to 

assume FHWA environmental review 

responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 326 

(State assumption of responsibility for 

categorical exclusions) or 23 U.S.C. 327 

(Surface transportation Project Delivery 

Program). As discussed in the sectionby-section analysis, under the proposed 

rule, FHWA may grant final approval of 

an Interstate System change in access 

request once certain conditions are met. 

There must be a favorable SO&E 

determination, and the applicable 

transportation planning, conformity, 

congestion management process, and 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) procedures must be completed. 

In addition, the alternative selected and 

approved in the NEPA decision must 

also be the subject of a favorable SO&E 

determination. FHWA retains approval 

authority for final approval of changes 

in access to the Interstate System under 

the proposed rule. 

The section-by-section analysis 

provides a detailed discussion of the 

proposed rule. 

Section-by-Section Discussion 

Section 624.1 Purpose 

In § 624.1, FHWA proposes to set 

forth the purpose of part 624. 

Specifically, the purpose is to prescribe 

requirements and procedures for State 

requests for, and FHWA consideration 

of, changes in access to the Interstate 

System. Both aspects of changes in 

access are reflected throughout this 

proposal. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64390 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Section 624.3 Applicability 

In § 624.3(a), FHWA proposes to 

specify the conditions under which 

proposed part 624 would be applicable. 

Historically, FHWA has applied the 

Policy to changes in access regardless of 

the funding source. This Policy was not 

applied to toll roads incorporated into 

the Interstate System, except for 

segments where Federal-aid highway 

funds have been expended or would be 

used for roadway improvements, or 

where the toll road section has been 

added to the Interstate System under the 

provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(4)(A). In 

this rulemaking, the proposed 

applicability aligns with 23 U.S.C. 

111(a), which ties the requirement for 

approval of changes in access along the 

Interstate System to the project 

agreement. On roadway segments where 

Federal-aid highway funds or other 

funds administered under Title 23 have 

never been used and will not be used for 

the modified access, there is no project 

agreement and the provisions of 23 

U.S.C. 111(a) do not apply. Therefore, 

under § 624.3(a)(1), applicability of the 

proposed rule is limited to Interstate 

System segments for which Federal-aid 

highway funds or other funds 

administered under Title 23 have been 

used in the past or are used to develop 

a project. As used in the proposed rule, 

a segment is the section of Interstate that 

falls within the project limits specified 

in the project agreement for the use of 

Title 23 funds. 

In proposed § 624.3(b), FHWA would 

clarify that the requirements of this part 

are not applicable to ramps providing 

access to safety rest areas, information 

centers, weigh stations, and truck 

inspection stations located within the 

Interstate right-of-way when such areas 

are accessible to vehicles only to and 

from the Interstate System. This section 

does not change the requirements of this 

part for connections from other public 

facilities, which may be allowed if an 

exception is granted in accordance with 

§ 624.7(f). 

In proposed § 624.3(c), FHWA would 

clarify that the requirements of this part 

are not applicable to connections 

between managed lanes and generalpurpose lanes on the same Interstate 

highway. 

Section 624.5 Definitions 

In § 624.5, FHWA proposes 

definitions for 11 terms specific to the 

Interstate System access approval 

process. Access point is proposed to 

mean any permanent (including those 

metered or closed at times) connection 

to the through lanes or shoulders, 

collector-distributor roads, or ramps on 

the Interstate System, including ‘‘locked 

gate access.’’ This definition is 

consistent with the definition included 

in the 1990 and 1998 policies. The 2009 

and 2017 policies changed the 

definition to focus on breaks in the 

control of access to the Interstate System 

right-of-way. Under a risk-based 

approach to stewardship and oversight, 

FHWA believes the focus should return 

to permanent connections to the 

Interstate through lanes or shoulders, 

collector-distributor roads, or ramps. 

Area of influence is proposed to mean 

the geographic extent to which a 

proposed change in access will affect 

traffic operations and safety. Change in 

access is proposed to mean the addition 

of a new, or modification of an existing, 

interchange or access point along the 

Interstate System. Interchange is 

proposed to mean a system of 

interconnecting roadways in 

conjunction with one or more grade 

separations that provides for the 

movement of traffic between two or 

more roadways or highways on different 

levels. Interstate Justification Report 

(IJR) is proposed to mean a technical 

report that documents the SO&E aspects 

of a proposed change in access to the 

Interstate System and demonstrates that 

the proposal meets the provisions of 

part 624. Interstate System has the 

meaning given in 23 U.S.C. 101 and for 

purposes of part 624, we propose that it 

includes: mainline lanes; shoulders; 

existing, new or modified ramps; 

collector-distributor roads; and ramp 

termini. Partial interchange is proposed 

to mean an interchange that does not 

provide for each of the eight basic 

movements (or four basic movements in 

the case of a three-legged interchange). 

Programmatic agreement (PA) is 

proposed to mean an agreement 

between FHWA and a State DOT under 

23 U.S.C. 111(e) to allow a State to 

review an IJR and make the SO&E 

determination. Public road as proposed 

has the meaning given in 23 U.S.C. 

101(a)(22). Safety, Operations, and 

Engineering (SO&E) determination is 

proposed to mean the technical 

determination of whether the proposed 

location, configuration, geometric 

design, and signing related to the 

proposed change in access may be 

reasonably expected to serve the 

anticipated traffic of the Interstate 

System in a manner that is conducive to 

safety, durability, and economy of 

maintenance. Safety rest area as 

proposed reflects the definition in 23 

CFR 752.3(a). That definition in the 

FHWA regulations governing landscape 

and roadside development refers to a 

roadside facility safely removed from 

the traveled way with parking and such 

facilities for the motorist deemed 

necessary for rest, relaxation, comfort, 

and information needs. The definition 

adds that the term is synonymous with 

‘‘rest and recreation areas.’’ 

FHWA requests comments on the 

proposed definitions. In addition, 

FHWA requests comments on additional 

terms relating to changes in access to 

the Interstate System that could benefit 

from definition in part 624. 

Section 624.7 Interstate System 

Access Requirements 

In § 624.7, FHWA proposes to specify 

the requirements applicable to Interstate 

System access. In § 624.7(a), FHWA 

proposes to require that proposed 

changes in access shall not result in a 

significant adverse impact on the 

Interstate System traffic operations or 

the safety for all roadway users in the 

project’s area of influence, consistent 

with FHWA’s goal of reducing fatal and 

serious injury crashes on the entire 

roadway network. The 2009 Policy 

stated, ‘‘An operational and safety 

analysis has concluded that the 

proposed change in access does not 

have a significant adverse impact on the 

safety and operation of the Interstate 

facility (which includes mainline lanes, 

existing, new, or modified ramps, ramp 

intersections with crossroad) or on the 

local street network based on both the 

current and the planned future traffic 

projections.’’ Since 2009, there has been 

confusion regarding the applicability of 

the ‘‘or’’ statement contained in this 

sentence in the 2009 Policy and carried 

forward in the 2017 policy. Questions 

have been raised about whether the ‘‘or’’ 

statement applied to the safety analysis, 

operational analysis, or both and 

whether a request for a change in access 

would be denied because the 

operational or safety analysis for either 

the Interstate System or the local roads 

was adversely impacted. To address 

these questions, FHWA proposes to 

clarify in § 624.7(a) that any change in 

access to the Interstate System shall not 

result in a significant adverse impact on 

the traffic operations of the Interstate 

System or the safety for all roadway 

users in the project’s area of influence. 

To ensure safety for all roadway users 

in the project’s area of influence, all 

users must be considered when 

reviewing an access request. To that 

end, the existing and projected land use 

along the crossroad should be examined 

and opportunities to improve 

connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle 

travel should be considered as part of 

the access modification. 

FHWA also proposes to ensure that 

the traffic and safety data used to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64391 

develop the safety and operational 

analysis for inclusion in the IJR is 

reasonably current. The traffic data 

available for the analysis is generally no 

more than 3 years old since 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPO) are required to update their 

models on a 3-year cycle. However, to 

account for the project development 

process (i.e., planning, preliminary 

design, environmental analysis, final 

design, right-of-way acquisition, and 

construction) and to minimize the need 

to revise an analysis that was started at 

the end of the MPO modeling cycle, the 

proposed rule would specify that traffic 

data used in the State DOT’s analysis 

may be no more than 5 years old. Where 

microsimulation modeling is used for 

the analysis, even more current traffic 

data may be useful. 

With multiple operational analysis 

tools and methodologies available, 

FHWA does not require the specific use 

of any tool. Regardless of which tool 

type is selected, it is important to 

understand the limitations of the chosen 

tool(s) and apply the tools in a manner 

which supports a verifiable, 

reproducible, and accurate analysis. 

This includes the effective calibration of 

the chosen tool(s) and proper 

interpretation of the output. In addition, 

it is important to provide 

documentation of the operational 

analysis in the IJR that gives sufficient 

information for an independent review 

of the conditions and does not require 

the use of any specific traffic analysis 

tool software. FHWA encourages the use 

of appropriate tools in a scope 

commensurate with the project 

complexity. 

For the safety evaluation, an analysis 

of recent crash data is useful for 

determining if the elements under study 

(freeway through lanes, interchange 

ramps, crossroads, and intersections) 

within the project area are experiencing 

more or greater severity of crashes than 

what would be considered typical for 

the conditions relevant to the facility. 

This information is helpful for 

identifying potential factors 

contributing to poor safety performance 

and how those conditions could be 

improved as part of the build 

proposal(s). Crash data more than 5 

years old does not provide an accurate 

assessment of the safety performance 

conditions of the facility because there 

may have been significant changes in 

travel patterns and conditions as 

evidenced by the need for proposed 

changes in access. FHWA believes the 5- 

year requirement for traffic and safety 

data proposed in this rule provides State 

DOTs with sufficient flexibility that 

accounts for project development 

processes and ensures that the analysis 

is based on reasonably current data. 

The safety analysis should assess the 

safety performance of the overall project 

(both Interstate and local roads) within 

the project’s area of influence. The 

scope of the analysis and the tools and 

methodologies used for the assessment 

should be commensurate with the scope 

and complexity of the proposed project. 

More complex projects have greater risk 

for introducing unintended negative 

safety consequences and therefore a 

more robust analysis may be necessary. 

The intent of the safety analysis is to 

guide project design decisions in an 

effort to: identify and mitigate any 

existing safety risk features that may be 

contributing to the number and severity 

of crashes; implement effective and 

efficient design choices that reduce 

future safety risks; and implement 

designs consistent with known human 

factors design guidance. Safety has 

traditionally been considered in 

highway projects within a standardsbased framework. Recent advancements 

in the development and use of statistical 

models within a data driven safety 

analysis framework allow for a more 

thorough understanding of the 

quantitative relationship between 

design features and safety performance. 

With multiple safety analysis tools 

and methodologies available, FHWA 

does not require the specific use of any 

tool. FHWA encourages the use of 

appropriate tools in a scope 

commensurate with the project 

complexity. If applying safety predictive 

models, it is important that the analysis 

consider the boundaries and conditions 

for which the model was developed. Not 

all conditions and scenarios have safety 

predictive models available. 

The safety analysis should assess 

safety performance (number and 

severity of crashes) under the proposed 

build and no-build scenarios. Predictive 

safety analysis tools may be applied on 

individual segments or components of 

the project, and it may be possible to 

sum the results for the entire project. If 

using predictive safety analysis tools, it 

is important to acknowledge the 

complexities of safety modeling and the 

potential variability from actual results. 

Instances may arise where the 

Interstate System could incur expected 

or predicted increases to overall crashes, 

or specific crash severity types, while 

the overall project crash impacts are 

reduced. FHWA expects agencies to 

carefully evaluate and discuss the 

tradeoffs between increased crashes on 

one facility versus another and will take 

this into account when making the 

SO&E determination. 

In § 624.7(b), FHWA proposes to 

require that access to the Interstate 

System must connect only to a public 

road, consistent with FHWA practice 

since 1990. The American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Design 

Standards—Interstate System has been 

adopted as the standard for the 

Interstate System. See § 625.4(a)(2). 

Since 1988, this standard has included 

the following provision related to access 

control to the Interstate System: ‘‘Access 

is to be achieved by interchanges at 

select public roads.’’ (AASHTO, A 

Policy on Design Standards—Interstate 

System, page 2). Requiring that access 

points connect to a public road assures 

that the access to the Interstate System 

will not be closed by private interests 

and that a public agency has the ability 

to make necessary improvements to 

maintain the safety and traffic 

operations of the interchange and the 

Interstate System. The proposed rule 

would specifically prohibit connections 

directly to private developments, 

parking lots, or private roads. 

In § 624.7(c), FHWA proposes to 

prohibit access from outside of the 

Interstate System right-of-way to safety 

rest areas, information centers, weigh 

stations, and truck inspection stations 

located within the right-of-way. Such 

prohibition is consistent with FHWA’s 

implementation of the 2009 Policy as 

documented in the Interstate System 

Access Informational Guide, 2010, 

available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

design/interstate/pubs/access/ 

access.pdf. Also, as noted in the 

AASHTO document, A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets, 2018, ‘‘a rest area is not 

intended to be used for social or civic 

gatherings or for such active forms of 

recreation as boating, swimming, or 

organized games.’’ (Section 3.6.2, page 

3–187). In addition, the AASHTO 

document, A Policy on Design 

Standards—Interstate System, 2016, 

states that access to the Interstate 

System is to be achieved by 

interchanges at selected public roads. 

(AASHTO, A Policy on Design 

Standards—Interstate System, page 2). 

Access to rest areas from outside the 

Interstate right-of-way is prohibited to 

ensure that the rest area is not used as 

an interchange to access a local road 

network, jeopardizing its intended 

function of reducing driver fatigue and 

for the convenience of highway users. 

These facilities should only be 

accessible to vehicles to and from the 

Interstate System. 

In § 624.7(d), FHWA proposes to 

require that each interchange provides 

for all traffic movements, consistent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64392 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

with the Policy since 1990 and the 

AASHTO document, A Policy on Design 

Standards—Interstate System, 2016, 

which has been adopted as a design 

standard. See § 625.4(a)(2). In § 624.7(e), 

FHWA proposes to require that the 

proposed change in access shall be 

designed to meet the standards in 

accordance with part 625 of this title or 

have approved exceptions, and shall 

comply with part 655 of this title, 

Traffic Operations, consistent with the 

Policy since 1990. 

In § 624.7(f), FHWA proposes to grant 

exceptions on a case by case basis to the 

requirements in § 624.7(b) through (d) 

for the situations referenced in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4). In 

§ 624.7(f)(1), FHWA could grant 

exceptions for locked gate access to 

private property for public safety. 

Locked gate access is sometimes 

necessary for use by maintenance or 

utility forces in remote areas, between 

widely spaced interchanges for 

emergency management or medical 

personnel, hazardous materials response 

and evacuations at industrial sites, or 

for temporary construction access. In 

§ 624.7(f)(2), FHWA could grant 

exceptions to allow locked gate access 

from an information center, weigh 

station, and truck inspection station to 

a local road as needed for public safety, 

such as locked gate access from a truck 

inspection station to a minor local road 

to access repair services in a remote 

area. In § 624.7(f)(3), FHWA could grant 

exceptions for access from a safety rest 

area to an adjacent, publicly owned 

conservation and recreation area if 

access to this area is available only 

through the safety rest area, as provided 

under 23 CFR 752.5(d). Section 

752.5(d), in FHWA’s regulations 

governing safety rest areas, allows 

FHWA to permit access from safety rest 

areas to adjacent publicly owned 

conservation and recreation areas if 

access to these areas is only available 

through the rest area and if these areas 

or their usage does not adversely affect 

the safety rest area facilities. In 

proposed § 624.7(f)(4), FHWA could 

grant exceptions for partial interchanges 

where they are necessary to provide 

special access (e.g., to managed lanes or 

park and ride lots), or where factors 

such as social, economic, and 

environmental impacts of a full 

interchange justify the exception. 

Section 624.9 Approval Process 

Proposed § 624.9(a) sets out the 

approval process for a change in access 

to the Interstate System. In § 624.9(a), 

FHWA proposes to require that a State 

DOT proposing a change in access 

submit electronically a request letter 

and an IJR to FHWA demonstrating that 

the proposed change in access meets the 

requirements of part 624. FHWA would 

not accept requests from other parties 

besides a State DOT. In § 624.9(b), 

FHWA proposes that approval of a 

change in access requires a SO&E 

determination and a final approval. The 

SO&E determination is separate from 

the NEPA process and final approval 

could not be granted until the NEPA 

process is complete. In § 624.9(c), 

FHWA proposes that the SO&E 

determination shall be based on the 

safety, operational, and engineering 

aspects of the request as documented in 

an IJR submitted by the State DOT in 

accordance with the requirements of 

proposed § 624.11. In § 624.9(c), FHWA 

also proposes that all SO&E 

determinations shall be made by FHWA 

except where an approved PA is in 

effect. When an approved PA is in 

effect, the State DOT shall make a SO&E 

determination on behalf of FHWA in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 111(e) and 23 

CFR 624.13 for specific types of 

Interstate System access. 

In § 624.9(d), FHWA proposes that if 

a favorable SO&E determination is 

made, FHWA would consider whether 

final approval of a proposed change in 

access to the Interstate System is 

appropriate. Further, FHWA proposes 

that final approval may only be granted 

by FHWA if the following conditions 

are met: (1) applicable transportation 

planning, conformity, congestion 

management process, and NEPA 

procedures have been completed; and 

(2) the alternative covered by the 

favorable SO&E determination is of the 

same scope and design as the alternative 

selected and approved in the NEPA 

decision. FHWA could not issue final 

approval of access until the NEPA 

procedures have been completed 

because the final approval is a major 

Federal action subject to NEPA. 

However, FHWA could make a SO&E 

determination in advance of the NEPA 

decision. 

In § 624.9(e), FHWA proposes that if 

a proposed change in access to the 

Interstate System has not progressed to 

construction within 5 years of an 

affirmative SO&E determination, FHWA 

may require a State DOT to provide 

verification that the requirements of 

§ 624.7 continue to be met based on 

current and projected future conditions. 

The 2009 Policy discussed reevaluating 

a proposal if the project did not proceed 

to construction within 8 years. This 

limit was reduced to 3 years in the 2017 

Policy to coincide with the timeframe 

for written NEPA re-evaluation for draft 

and final environmental impact 

statements (EIS) pursuant to 23 CFR 

771.129(a) and (b). FHWA has 

determined that linking these two 

timeframes is not appropriate because 

the 3-year NEPA requirement applies 

only in situations where an EIS is 

developed and not every Interstate 

access modification request requires an 

EIS. As mentioned above, traffic and 

safety data that is up to 5 years old is 

adequate to make SO&E determinations. 

Therefore, FHWA now proposes to set 

the limit for a proposed change in 

access to progress to construction 

without State DOT verification under 

§ 624.7 at 5 years after an affirmative 

SO&E determination. FHWA selected 

this duration because traffic and safety 

data that is older than 5 years 

introduces higher risk in the analysis of 

SO&E acceptability. The 5 year 

threshold for proceeding to construction 

will provide a maximum of 10 years [5 

years (project development) + 5 years 

(verification)] from the time the traffic 

data was collected. Within this time 

period, some areas could see significant 

change in travel patterns and 

conditions, which may warrant a 

reconsideration of whether the technical 

assumptions that formed the basis of 

FHWA’s prior approval are still valid. In 

addition, this timeframe would allow 

for two Long-Range Transportation Plan 

updates for most MPOs. See 23 U.S.C. 

134(i)(1). 

Section 624.11 Interstate Justification 

Report 

Proposed § 624.11 addresses the IJR. 

In § 624.11(a), FHWA proposes to 

require that the IJR be a standalone 

report. We expect that all information 

necessary to make the SO&E 

determination would be in the IJR. 

Relevant information from other 

documents must be included in the IJR, 

rather than referenced. 

In § 624.11(b), FHWA proposes to 

prescribe the minimum information that 

must be included in the IJR, except as 

provided under § 624.11(d), so that 

FHWA can make a determination 

regarding the SO&E aspects of the 

proposed change in access request. 

These requirements are consistent with 

long-standing practice as documented in 

the 2010 Interstate System Access 

Informational Guide. 

In § 624.11(b)(1), FHWA proposes to 

require a proposed project description 

and overview along with a location map 

with applicable distances to adjacent 

interchanges. 

In § 624.11(b)(2), FHWA proposes to 

require preliminary design documents 

sufficient for FHWA to determine the 

geometric viability of the proposed 

project. Specifically, FHWA proposes to 

require that the IJR include, at a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64393 

minimum, the design criteria, existing 

geometry overlaid with clearly labeled 

proposed geometry plan views, lane 

configuration schematics, typical 

sections, control-of-access lines, 

interchange spacing, ramp spacing, and 

other design features necessary to 

evaluate the proposed design. The 

geometric design criteria needed would 

vary based on the stage of development 

and complexity of the proposal. 

In § 624.11(b)(3), FHWA proposes 

requirements for the limits of the 

operational and safety analysis for the 

proposed change in access included in 

the IJR. In § 624.11(b)(3)(i) and (ii), 

FHWA proposes that the operational 

and safety analysis must include at least 

the first adjacent existing or proposed 

interchanges and intersections to 

evaluate the impacts on the roadway 

network. A preliminary understanding 

of the traffic conditions should be 

gained prior to selecting the limits of the 

network. Based on the complexity of the 

proposal, logical traffic breaks should be 

selected within the system rather than 

adhering to only the minimum 

requirements. 

In § 624.11(b)(4), FHWA proposes to 

require that a conceptual signing plan 

showing the type and location of the 

signs proposed to support the proposed 

design be included in the IJR. This plan 

is necessary for FHWA to determine if 

the proposed interchange can be 

adequately and clearly signed. 

In § 624.11(c), FHWA proposes to 

specify the additional information that 

must be included in the IJR when a 

proposed change in access will not 

provide for all traffic movements at an 

interchange (also known as a partial 

interchange) in accordance with 

proposed § 624.7(d). In § 624.11(c)(1), 

FHWA proposes to require that the IJR 

must provide a full-interchange option 

and compare the SO&E to the proposed 

partial interchange option. The IJR must 

justify the necessity for a partial 

interchange alternative. In 

§ 624.11(c)(2), FHWA proposes that the 

IJR must describe why a partial 

interchange is proposed and include the 

proposed mitigation to compensate for 

missing movements, such as wayfinding 

signage, local intersection 

improvements, mitigation of driver 

expectation leading to wrong-way 

movements on ramps, and other 

proposed strategies as necessary. In 

§ 624.11(c)(3), FHWA proposes that the 

IJR must discuss if the future provision 

of a full interchange will be precluded 

by the proposed design. 

In § 624.11(d), FHWA proposes to 

consider the complexity of a change in 

access when determining the extent of 

the safety and operational analysis and 

the format of the IJR. Due to the 

variation in complexity of projects, 

coordination between FHWA and a 

State DOT is necessary to determine the 

level of analysis needed based on the 

context of a specific project. Projects 

that include the addition of left-turn 

storage lanes, right-turn storage lanes 

and through lanes along the crossroad at 

the terminus of existing ramps are not 

changes in access and would not require 

IJRs. State DOTs are encouraged to 

coordinate with FHWA to determine 

what constitutes a change in access. 

Section 624.13 Programmatic 

Agreement 

In § 624.13, FHWA proposes the 

process a State DOT must use if they 

wish to enter into a PA with FHWA that 

would delegate to the State DOT 

responsibility for making SO&E 

determinations on behalf of FHWA in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 111(e) and 

section 1318(d) of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21). FHWA also proposes that, if 

delegated, SO&E determinations must 

be made in accordance with the 

requirements of this part. The process 

identified in this section is consistent 

with the FHWA memorandum, 

‘‘Programmatic Agreement for 

Processing Interstate Access Requests— 

Revised’’ (PA Memo) dated April 26, 

2016, available at https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/interstate/ 

160426.cfm. FHWA intends to update 

the PA template to incorporate the 

regulatory provisions and citations after 

the final rule is published. 

In § 624.13(a), FHWA proposes to 

specify the types of access requests that 

a State DOT, through a PA with FHWA, 

may assume delegated authority to make 

SO&E acceptability determinations on 

behalf of FHWA. The State DOT may 

assume all or any portion of the allowed 

types of access requests. The types of 

access requests, including new freewayto-crossroad (service) interchanges, 

modifications to existing freeway-tocrossroad (service) interchanges, and 

completion of basic movements at 

freeway-to-crossroad (service) 

interchanges, are consistent with 23 

U.S.C. 111(e). 

In § 624.13(b), FHWA proposes to 

specify the information the State DOT 

must provide in the PA request. In 

§ 624.13(b)(1), FHWA proposes that the 

State DOT must provide the types of 

access requests for which they wish to 

assume the responsibility of SO&E 

determinations. In § 624.13(b)(2), FHWA 

proposes that the State DOT must also 

describe the controls and resources they 

have available to effectively implement 

the PA and address the considerations 

identified in proposed § 624.13(c). 

In § 624.13(c)(1), FHWA proposes that 

upon receipt of a State DOT’s request to 

enter into a PA, FHWA will verify that 

the State DOT has developed and 

implemented appropriate controls and 

processes, and that the State DOT has 

the necessary resources and commits to 

conduct future actions in compliance 

with the requested PA in order to 

assume responsibility for SO&E 

determinations on behalf of FHWA. 

FHWA also proposes a list of specific 

factors that will be considered. 

In § 624.13(c)(1)(i), FHWA proposes to 

examine whether the State DOT has in 

place or has modified policies, standard 

operating procedures (SOP), and 

processes that are necessary to 

implement the PA. In § 624.13(c)(1)(ii), 

FHWA proposes to examine whether 

State DOT processes and guidance have 

been developed and implemented to 

support the development, analysis, 

documentation, review, and potential 

processing of Interstate System access 

changes under the terms of the PA. In 

§ 624.13(c)(1)(iii), FHWA proposes to 

examine documentation demonstrating 

the process, guidance, assistance, and 

oversight that State DOTs will provide 

to support local agencies who may 

propose changes in Interstate System 

access. In § 624.13(c)(1)(iv), FHWA 

proposes to examine documentation 

demonstrating whether the State DOT 

has the technical expertise and 

resources (e.g., training, analysis tools) 

for State DOT staff to analyze, review, 

and process proposed changes in 

Interstate System access under the terms 

of the PA. In § 624.13(c)(1)(v), FHWA 

proposes to examine documentation 

demonstrating whether the State DOT 

has procedures in place governing 

oversight, monitoring, and annual 

reporting to FHWA to ensure that 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System are processed in a manner that 

is consistent with the terms of the PA. 

In § 624.13(c)(1)(vi), FHWA proposes 

that any other factors deemed necessary 

by the Secretary will be examined. 

In § 624.13(c)(2), FHWA proposes to 

establish, with input from the State 

DOT, the scope and conditions for the 

State DOT’s review of access requests 

and the process by which the State DOT 

will make the SO&E determination. 

In § 624.13(d), FHWA proposes that 

the PA will require that the State DOT 

submit electronically an annual report 

to FHWA that at a minimum 

summarizes specific information about 

SO&E determinations under the PA. In 

§ 624.13(d)(1), FHWA proposes to 

require a State DOT to submit a list of 

all the SO&E determinations made in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64394 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the previous calendar year. In 

§ 624.13(d)(2), FHWA proposes to 

require a State DOT to submit a 

summary of anticipated changes in 

access to be evaluated under the PA in 

the coming calendar year. In 

§ 624.13(d)(3), FHWA proposes to 

require that the report assess the 

effectiveness and verify that all changes 

in access to the Interstate System 

processed through the PA were 

evaluated and processed consistent with 

the terms of the PA. In § 624.13(d)(4), 

FHWA proposes to require that the 

report identify any areas where 

improvements are needed and what 

actions the State DOT is taking to 

implement those improvements. In 

§ 624.13(d)(5), FHWA proposes that the 

report will include actions taken by the 

State DOT as part of its quality control 

efforts. 

In § 624.13(e), FHWA proposes that 

once all concerns have been addressed 

to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the 

PA may be executed. 

FHWA requests comments on the 

proposed rule. Please follow the 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Notice to submit comments. 

Additional information about 

commenting is available under 

‘‘Electronic Access and Filing’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Rulemaking Policies and Procedures 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this 

rulemaking a significant action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866. Accordingly, OMB has not 

reviewed it. This proposed rule would 

codify existing policy, processes and 

procedures relating to new or modified 

access to the Interstate System. In 

addition, this proposed rule complies 

with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 to 

improve regulation. This proposed rule 

is not anticipated to adversely affect, in 

any material way, any sector of the 

economy. In addition, this proposed 

rule would not create a serious 

inconsistency with any action taken or 

planned by another agency or materially 

alter the budgetary impact of any 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs. This proposed rule also does 

not raise any novel legal or policy 

issues. FHWA anticipates that the 

economic impact of this rulemaking will 

be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory 

evaluation is not necessary. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354; 5 U.S.C. 

60l–612), FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this proposed rule on small 

entities, such as local governments and 

businesses. Based on the evaluation, 

FHWA anticipates that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed rule would 

codify the processes that are currently 

in-use by State DOTs when changes in 

access to the Interstate System are 

sought, and States are not included in 

the definition of small entity set forth in 

5 U.S.C. 601. FHWA believes the 

projected impact upon small entities 

that utilize Federal-aid highway 

program funding for the development of 

highway improvement projects on the 

National Highway System would be 

negligible. Therefore, FHWA certifies 

that the proposed action would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

FHWA has determined that this 

NPRM would not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 109 Stat. 48) (UMRA). This 

proposed rule would not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $155 million or more 

in any one year (when adjusted for 

inflation). Further, in compliance with 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 

FHWA will evaluate any regulatory 

action that might be proposed in 

subsequent stages of the proceeding to 

assess the effects on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. In addition, the definition of 

‘‘Federal Mandate’’ in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act excludes financial 

assistance of the type in which State, 

local, or Tribal governments have 

authority to adjust their participation in 

the program in accordance with changes 

made in the program by the Federal 

Government. The Federal-aid highway 

program permits this type of flexibility. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

FHWA has analyzed this proposed 

rule in accordance with the principles 

and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. 

FHWA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

FHWA has also determined that this 

action would not preempt any State law 

or State regulation or affect the States’ 

ability to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information by a Federal 

Agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. Federal 

agencies must obtain OMB approval for 

each collection of information they 

conduct, sponsor, or require through 

regulations, among others. This 

proposed rule would have new 

collection of information requirements 

that would require the submittal of two 

reports that State DOTs have submitted 

to FHWA for years under existing 

policy: the IJR and the PA annual report. 

The IJR provides the justification and 

documentation necessary to substantiate 

any proposed change in access to the 

Interstate System and facilitates 

FHWA’s decisionmaking giving 

consideration to the SO&E aspects of the 

proposed change. The PA annual report 

was established under PA procedures to 

track IJRs that have received SO&E 

determinations and the processes used 

to make those determinations under the 

PA. Accordingly, FHWA has forwarded 

an Information Collection Request (ICR) 

for the proposed new collection of 

information described below to the 

OMB for review and comment. The ICR 

describes the nature of the collection of 

information and its expected burden. 

In compliance with the PRA, FHWA 

also requests comments on the proposed 

new collection of information: 

Title: Interstate System Access— 

Reports. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2125—New. 

Form Number: The collection of 

information would not use any standard 

forms. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the date of 

approval. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: The proposed regulations 

in §§ 624.11 and 624.13(d), respectively, 

would require State DOTs to submit two 

reports; the IJR and the PA annual 

report. The IJR has been submitted 

under existing policy since 1990, 55 FR 

42670 (October 22, 1990). It provides 

the justification and documentation 

necessary to substantiate any proposed 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System and facilitates FHWA’s 

decisionmaking, giving consideration to 

the SO&E aspects of the proposed 

change. The IJR must include a 

description and overview of the 

proposed change, preliminary design 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64395 

2See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/safety. 

documents, operational and safety 

analyses evaluating the impact on the 

Interstate System and local road 

network, and a conceptual plan showing 

the type and location of proposed signs. 

The IJR for a proposed partial 

interchange must include additional 

information. The PA annual report has 

been submitted since 2013, when PA 

procedures were first established, to 

track IJRs that have received SO&E 

determinations and the processes used 

to make those determinations under the 

PA. Under proposed § 624.13(d), a PA 

must require that the State DOT 

electronically submit an annual report 

to FHWA summarizing its performance 

under the PA. 

Description of the Need for the 

Information: As discussed under the 

‘‘Background and Legal Authority’’ 

heading of this preamble, FHWA is 

authorized to approve any points of 

access to, or exit from, the Interstate 

System for those routes for which 

Federal-aid highway funds or other 

funds administered under Title 23 have 

been used in the past or will be used to 

develop a project, in accordance with 23 

U.S.C. 111. Additional authority is 

found in section 1318(d) of MAP–21, 

and 23 U.S.C. 111(e). Full control of 

access along the Interstate mainline and 

ramps, along with control of access on 

the crossroad at interchanges, is critical 

to ensuring that the Interstate System 

provides the highest level of service in 

terms of safety and mobility. Collecting 

information in the form of an IJR allows 

FHWA to adequately review proposed 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System and determine the safety and 

mobility impacts prior to making a 

decision of acceptability of a proposed 

construction project. In addition, 

information collected in the IJRs is 

streamlined to remove duplication 

amongst other programs within FHWA 

and reduce administrative burdens to 

State DOTs. 

The proposed requirements for the 

submission of IJRs and PA annual 

reports to FHWA align with the DOT 

priority of Safety.2

Proposed Use of the Information: 

FHWA’s decision to approve change in 

access points to the Interstate System 

must be supported by technical 

information indicating that the 

proposed change in access will not have 

a significant adverse impact on the 

safety and operation of the Interstate 

facility. FHWA is proposing to require 

in 23 CFR 624.9(a) that when a State 

DOT requests a change in access, such 

technical information be submitted to 

FHWA in the form of an IJR that meets 

the requirements of proposed 23 CFR 

624.11, together with a letter requesting 

the change in access. FHWA staff in the 

division office (field) will review the IJR 

to determine whether the request is 

consistent with FHWA policy and 

applicable requirements and whether to 

recommend concurrence. The IJR may 

be shared with staff in FHWA’s 

Resource Center and Headquarters for 

technical assistance, depending on the 

complexity of the analysis where 

supplemental technical expertise is 

needed. For changes in access that 

require FHWA Headquarters 

concurrence, such as system 

interchanges (freeway-to-freeway) or 

partial interchanges the IJR is 

transmitted to FHWA Headquarters, 

Office of Infrastructure, to make the 

determination on the IJR. 

A State DOT has the option of 

entering into a PA with FHWA to make 

SO&E determinations on IJRs. If a State 

DOT has an approved PA then they are 

required to submit a PA annual report, 

which is used to monitor the 

performance of the PA. FHWA staff in 

the field will review the annual report 

as part of their oversight of the PA 

process. 

Description of the Respondents 

(Including Estimated Number and 

Proposed Frequency of Responses to the 

Collection of Information): The 

respondents are 52 State DOTs. State 

DOTs will only submit IJRs if they are 

requesting Interstate System access. The 

IJRs are submitted based on need; as a 

result, there is no expectation that all 

respondents will submit IJRs annually. 

Based on historical data, a maximum of 

30 annual responses are expected with 

this collection. The PA annual reports 

are submitted from State DOTs that have 

an approved PA with FHWA. It is 

estimated that five PA annual reports 

will be submitted yearly with this 

collection. 

Estimate of the Total Response 

Burden Resulting from the Collection of 

Information: FHWA estimates the total 

burden for IJR collections to be 

approximately 3,900 hours and 

$214,500 annually for State DOTs. It is 

estimated that the total burden for IJR 

reviews will be approximately 990 

hours and $65,340 annually for FHWA. 

FHWA estimates the total burden for 

the PA annual reports collection to be 

approximately 50 hours and $2,750 

annually for State DOTs. It is estimated 

that the total burden for reviews of the 

PA annual reports collection will be 

approximately 10 hours and $660 

annually for FHWA. 

Public Comments Requested: FHWA 

requests comments on any aspect of this 

information collection, including: (1) 

whether the proposed collection is 

necessary for FHWA’s performance; (2) 

the accuracy of the estimated burdens; 

(3) ways for FHWA to enhance the 

quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 

collected information; and (4) ways that 

the burden could be minimized, 

including through the use of electronic 

technology, without reducing the 

quality of the collected information. 

FHWA will summarize and/or include 

comments on these points in the request 

for OMB’s clearance of this information 

collection. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

FHWA has analyzed this proposed 

rule for the purposes of the NEPA (42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and has determined 

that it qualifies for a categorical 

exclusion (CE) under 23 CFR 

771.117(c)(20), which applies to the 

promulgation of regulations, and that no 

unusual circumstances are present 

under 23 CFR 771.117(b). Categorically 

excluded actions meet the criteria for 

CEs under the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations and 

under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally 

do not require any further NEPA 

approvals by FHWA. This proposed rule 

would not affect the NEPA process for 

Interstate access requests, and if it is 

promulgated as proposed, FHWA would 

not grant a project final approval until 

the NEPA process was completed. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

FHWA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under E.O. 13175 and believes that 

it would not have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments, and would not preempt 

Tribal law. This proposed rule would 

not impose any direct compliance 

requirements on Indian Tribal 

governments nor would it have any 

economic or other impacts on the 

viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of E.O. 13175 do not apply and a Tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal 

agency make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying 

and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities 

on minorities and low-income 

populations. FHWA has determined that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64396 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

this proposed rule does not raise any 

environmental justice issues. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN number 

contained in the heading of this 

document can be used to cross-reference 

this action with the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 624 

Interstate access process, Interstate 

Justification Report, Programmatic 

Agreement. 

Issued under authority delegated in 

49 CFR 1.81 and 1.85. 

Shailen P. Bhatt, 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA proposes to amend title 23 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations by adding 

part 624 as follows: 

PART 624—INTERSTATE SYSTEM 

ACCESS 

Sec. 

624.1 Purpose. 

624.3 Applicability. 

624.5 Definitions. 

624.7 Interstate System access 

requirements. 

624.9 Approval process. 

624.11 Interstate Justification Report. 

624.13 Programmatic agreement. 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(a) and (b) and 

111; 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.85. 

§ 624.1 Purpose. 

To prescribe requirements and 

procedures for State requests for and 

FHWA consideration of changes in 

access to the Interstate System. 

§ 624.3 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) and (c) of this section, this part is 

applicable to all segments designated as 

part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower 

National System of Interstate and 

Defense Highways (Interstate System) 

for which Federal-aid highway funds or 

other funds administered under title 23 

have been used in the past or are used 

to develop a project. 

(b) This part is not applicable to 

ramps providing access to safety rest 

areas, information centers, weigh 

stations, and truck inspection stations 

located within the Interstate right-ofway when such areas are accessible to 

vehicles only to and from the Interstate 

System. Connections from other public 

facilities to facilities within the 

Interstate System right-of way, if an 

exception is granted in accordance with 

§ 624.7(f), are subject to the 

requirements of this part. 

(c) This part is not applicable to 

connections between managed lanes 

and general-purpose lanes on the same 

Interstate highway. 

§ 624.5 Definitions. 

The following terms used in this part 

are defined as follows: 

Access point. Any permanent 

connection (including those metered or 

closed at times) to the through lanes or 

shoulders, collector-distributor roads, or 

ramps on the Interstate System, 

including ‘‘locked gate access’’. 

Area of influence. The geographic 

extent to which a proposed change in 

access will affect traffic operations and 

safety. 

Change in access. The addition of a 

new, or modification of an existing, 

interchange or access point along the 

Interstate System. 

Interchange. A system of 

interconnecting roadways in 

conjunction with one or more grade 

separations that provides for the 

movement of traffic between two or 

more roadways or highways on different 

levels. 

Interstate Justification Report (IJR). A 

technical report that documents the 

safety, operations, and engineering 

aspects of a proposed change in access 

to the Interstate System and 

demonstrates that the proposal meets 

the provisions of this part. 

Interstate System. The term 

‘‘Interstate System’’ as defined in 23 

U.S.C. 101, and includes mainline lanes; 

shoulders; existing, new, or modified 

ramps; collector-distributor roads; and 

ramp termini. For purposes of this part, 

the Interstate System shall be limited to 

those routes for which Federal-aid 

highway funds or other funds 

administered under title 23 have been 

used in the past or will be used to 

develop a project. 

Partial interchange. An interchange 

that does not provide for each of the 

eight basic movements (or four basic 

movements in the case of a three-legged 

interchange). 

Programmatic agreement (PA). 

Agreement between FHWA and a State 

department of transportation (DOT) 

under 23 U.S.C. 111(e) to allow a State 

to review and make the Safety, 

Operations, and Engineering (SO&E) 

determination. 

Public road. The term ‘‘public road’’ 

as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101. 

Safety, Operations, and Engineering 

(SO&E) determination. Technical 

determination of whether the proposed 

location, configuration, geometric 

design, and signing related to the 

proposed change in access may be 

reasonably expected to serve the 

anticipated traffic of the Interstate 

System in a manner that is conducive to 

safety, durability, and economy of 

maintenance. 

Safety rest area. The term ‘‘safety rest 

area’’ as defined in § 752.3(a) of this 

chapter. 

§ 624.7 Interstate System access 

requirements. 

(a) The proposed change in access to 

the Interstate System shall not result in 

a significant adverse impact on the 

Interstate System traffic operations or 

the safety for all roadway users in the 

project’s area of influence, as 

demonstrated by operational and safety 

analyses based on both the current and 

future traffic projections using traffic 

and safety data that is no more than 5 

years old. 

(b) Interstate System access points 

shall connect only to a public road. 

Connections directly to private 

developments, parking lots, or private 

roads are prohibited. 

(c) Connections from outside of the 

Interstate System right-of-way to safety 

rest areas, information centers, weigh 

stations, and truck inspection stations 

located within the Interstate System 

right-of-way are prohibited. 

(d) Each interchange shall provide for 

all traffic movements. 

(e) A proposed change in access shall 

be designed to meet the standards in 

accordance with part 625 of this chapter 

or have approved exceptions and shall 

comply with part 655 of this chapter. 

(f) On a case by case basis, FHWA 

may grant exceptions to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b) through 

(d) of this section for: 

(1) Locked gate access to private 

property for purposes of public safety; 

(2) Locked gate access from an 

information center, weigh station, and 

truck inspection station to a local road 

for the purposes of public safety; 

(3) Access from a safety rest area to an 

adjacent publicly owned conservation 

and recreation area if access to this area 

is available only through the safety rest 

area as allowed under § 752.5(d) of this 

chapter; or 

(4) A partial interchange where 

necessary to provide special access, 

such as to managed lanes or park and 

ride lots, or where factors such as the 

social, economic, and environmental 

impacts of a full interchange justify an 

exception. 

§ 624.9 Approval process. 

(a) To propose a change in access to 

the Interstate System, the State DOT 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64397 

shall submit electronically to FHWA a 

request letter and an IJR complying with 

§ 624.11 demonstrating that the 

proposed change in access meets the 

requirements of this part. Change in 

access requests will not be accepted 

from other parties besides a State DOT. 

(b) Approval of a change in access to 

the Interstate System requires a SO&E 

determination and a final approval. 

(c) The SO&E determination shall be 

based on the safety, operations, and 

engineering aspects of the request as 

documented in an IJR meeting the 

requirements of this part. FHWA shall 

make the SO&E determination, except 

where FHWA has delegated to a State 

DOT the authority to make the SO&E 

determination on behalf of FHWA by 

entering into a programmatic agreement 

that meets the requirements of § 624.13. 

(d) If a favorable SO&E determination 

is made, FHWA will consider whether 

final approval is appropriate for the 

proposed change in access to the 

Interstate System. Final approval may 

only be granted by FHWA and 

constitutes a major Federal action under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). Final approval may be granted 

if the following conditions are met: 

(1) Applicable transportation 

planning, conformity, congestion 

management process, and NEPA 

procedures have been completed. 

(2) The alternative covered by the 

favorable SO&E determination is of the 

same scope and design as the alternative 

selected and approved in the NEPA 

decision. 

(e) If the project has not progressed to 

construction within 5 years of receiving 

an affirmative SO&E determination, 

FHWA may require the State DOT to 

provide verification that the 

requirements of § 624.7 continue to be 

met based on current and projected 

future conditions. 

§ 624.11 Interstate Justification Report. 

(a) The IJR shall be a standalone 

report. Relevant information from other 

documents (such as feasibility studies, 

NEPA documents or preliminary 

engineering reports) must be included 

in the appropriate section of the IJR. 

(b) At a minimum, an IJR submitted 

to FHWA shall include all of the 

following, except as provided under 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(1) A description and overview of the 

proposed change in access including a 

project location map and distances to 

adjacent interchanges. 

(2) Preliminary design documents 

sufficient to demonstrate the geometric 

viability of the proposal. The design 

documents shall include the design 

criteria, existing geometry overlaid with 

clearly labeled proposed geometric plan 

views, lane configuration schematics, 

typical sections, control-of-access lines, 

interchange spacing, ramp spacing, and 

other design features necessary to 

evaluate the proposed design. 

(3) Operational and safety analyses 

that evaluate the impact of the proposed 

change in access on the Interstate 

System and local road network 

extending to the following area of 

influence limits at a minimum: 

(i) Along the Interstate System, and 

interchanging freeway if applicable, to 

the adjacent existing or proposed 

interchange on either side of the 

proposed change in access, extending 

further as needed to ensure the limits of 

the analysis are appropriate to fully 

understand the impact of the proposed 

change in access on the Interstate 

System. 

(ii) Along each crossroad to the first 

major intersection on either side of the 

proposed change in access, extending 

further as needed to demonstrate the 

safety and operational impacts that the 

proposed change in access and other 

transportation improvements may have 

on the local road network. 

(4) A conceptual plan showing the 

type and location of the signs proposed 

to support the proposed design. 

(c) The IJR for a proposed partial 

interchange shall meet the following 

additional requirements. 

(1) The IJR shall include a fullinterchange option with a comparison of 

the operational and safety analyses to 

the partial interchange option. The IJR 

shall justify the necessity for a partial 

interchange alternative. 

(2) The IJR shall describe why a 

partial interchange is proposed and 

include the mitigation proposed to 

compensate for the missing basic 

movements, including wayfinding 

signage, local intersection 

improvements, mitigation of driver 

expectation leading to wrong-way 

movements on ramps, and other 

proposed strategies as necessary. 

(3) The IJR shall describe whether 

future provision of a full interchange is 

precluded by the proposed design. 

(d) FHWA will consider the 

complexity of a change in access when 

determining the extent of the safety and 

operational analysis and the format of 

the IJR. 

§ 624.13 Programmatic agreement. 

A State DOT may submit to FHWA a 

written request to enter into a 

programmatic agreement (PA) with 

FHWA that delegates to the State DOT 

the authority to make the SO&E 

determination on behalf of FHWA in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 111(e) and 

the requirements of this part. 

(a) A PA may allow a State DOT to 

make the SO&E determination for all or 

any part of the following types of 

change in access requests: 

(1) New freeway-to-crossroad (service) 

interchanges; 

(2) Modifications to existing freewayto-crossroad (service) interchanges; and 

(3) Completion of basic movements at 

freeway-to-crossroad (service) 

interchanges. 

(b) The State DOT request to enter 

into a PA with FHWA shall include: 

(1) The types of changes in access 

listed in paragraph (a) of this section for 

which the State DOT would like to 

make SO&E determinations; and 

(2) A discussion of controls the State 

DOT has implemented, resources 

available, and actions that would be 

taken if the PA is approved, as needed 

to address the considerations outlined 

in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Upon receipt of the request, FHWA 

will: 

(1) Verify that appropriate controls 

and processes have been developed and 

implemented by the State DOT, and that 

the State DOT has the necessary 

resources and commits to conduct 

future actions in compliance with the 

terms of the requested PA. FHWA will 

examine: 

(i) State DOT policies, standard 

operating procedures, and processes, 

either in place or modified as needed to 

carry out the requirements of the PA; 

(ii) Documentation demonstrating the 

processes and guidance that have been 

developed and implemented to support 

the development, analysis, 

documentation, review, and potential 

processing of each type of proposed 

change in access to the Interstate System 

to which the terms of the PA would 

apply; 

(iii) Documentation demonstrating the 

process, guidance, assistance, and 

oversight the State DOT will provide to 

support local agencies (e.g., cities, 

counties, toll authorities, metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs)) that 

may propose or submit requests to the 

State DOT for changes in access to the 

Interstate System to which the terms of 

the PA would apply; 

(iv) Documentation demonstrating 

that the State DOT has the expertise and 

resources (e.g., training, analysis tools) 

needed to carry out the requirements of 

the PA; 

(v) Documentation of State DOT 

procedures to provide the necessary 

oversight, monitoring and annual 

reporting to the FHWA to ensure the 

changes in access to the Interstate 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
64398 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

System are processed consistent with 

the terms of the PA; and 

(vi) Any other factors deemed 

necessary by the Secretary. 

(2) Establish, with input from the 

State DOT, the scope and conditions for 

the State DOT’s review of change in 

access requests and the process by 

which the State DOT will make the 

SO&E determination. 

(d) A PA shall require that the State 

DOT submit electronically an annual 

report to FHWA summarizing its 

performance under the PA. The report 

shall, at a minimum: 

(1) Include the results of all changes 

in access to the Interstate System that 

were processed and received a SO&E 

determination under the terms of the PA 

for the previous calendar year; 

(2) Summarize the changes in access 

to the Interstate System that the State 

DOT plans to process in the coming 

calendar year; 

(3) Assess the effectiveness of and 

verify that all changes in access to the 

Interstate System processed through this 

agreement were evaluated and 

processed in a manner consistent with 

the terms of this PA; 

(4) Identify any areas where 

improvements are needed and what 

actions the State DOT is taking to 

implement those improvements; and 

(5) Include actions taken by the State 

DOT as part of its quality control efforts. 

(e) When all concerns have been 

addressed to the satisfaction of the 

Secretary, the PA may be executed. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20218 Filed 9–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0069; FRL–10579–08– 

OCSPP] 

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for 

Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or 

on Various Commodities (August 2023) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of an initial filing of a 

pesticide petition requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 19, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0069, 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Additional 

instructions on commenting and visiting 

the docket, along with more information 

about dockets generally, is available at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Smith, Registration Division 

(RD) (7505T), main telephone number: 

(202) 566–2427, email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing 

address for each contact person is Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

As part of the mailing address, include 

the contact person’s name, division, and 

mail code. The division to contact is 

listed at the end of each application 

summary. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

comments.html. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticides 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is announcing receipt of a 

pesticide petition filed under section 

408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

requesting the establishment or 

modification of regulations in 40 CFR 

part 180 for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various food 

commodities. The Agency is taking 

public comment on the request before 

responding to the petitioner. EPA is not 

proposing any particular action at this 

time. EPA has determined that the 

pesticide petition described in this 

document contains data or information 

prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 

21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has 

not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the 

submitted data at this time or whether 

the data supports granting of the 

pesticide petition. After considering the 

public comments, EPA intends to 

evaluate whether and what action may 

be warranted. Additional data may be 

needed before EPA can make a final 

determination on this pesticide petition. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a 

summary of the petition that is the 

subject of this document, prepared by 

the petitioner, is included in a docket 

EPA has created for this rulemaking. 

The docket for this petition is available 

at https://www.regulations.gov. 

As specified in FFDCA section 

408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is 

publishing notice of the petition so that 

the public has an opportunity to 

comment on this request for the 

establishment or modification of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1