88118 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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

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

programadmin/fraccess.cfm). 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the responsible Flight Standards Office. 

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2023–13–11 

are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of this AD. 

(r) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 

410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516– 

228–7300; email 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. 

(2) Material identified in this AD that is not 

incorporated by reference is available at the 

address specified in paragraph (s)(5) of this 

AD. 

(s) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) You must use this material as 

applicable to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following material was approved 

for IBR on November 26, 2024 (89 FR 84267, 

October 22, 2024). 

(i) Safran Aerosystems Alert Service 

Bulletin 10015804–35–01, Revision 04, dated 

November 9, 2023. 

(ii) Safran Aerosystems Alert Service 

Bulletin 10015804–35–02, Revision 06, dated 

August 30, 2023. 

(iii) Safran Aerosystems Alert Service 

Bulletin 10015804–35–03, Revision 05, dated 

September 29, 2023. 

(4) The following material was approved 

for IBR on September 5, 2023 (88 FR 50011, 

August 1, 2023). 

(i) AVOX Systems Inc. Alert Service 

Bulletin 10015804–35–01, Revision 03, dated 

June 7, 2021. 

(ii) AVOX Systems Inc. Alert Service 

Bulletin 10015804–35–02, Revision 03, dated 

March 11, 2022. 

(iii) AVOX Systems Inc. Alert Service 

Bulletin 10015804–35–03, Revision 03, dated 

June 18, 2021. 

(5) For material identified in this AD, 

contact AVOX Systems Inc., 225 Erie Street, 

Lancaster, NY 14086; telephone 716–683– 

5100; website safranaerosystems.com. 

(6) You may view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

(7) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locationsoremailfr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Issued on October 30, 2024. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25784 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 624 

[Docket No. FHWA–2020–0006] 

RIN 2125–AF89 

Interstate System Access 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends FHWA 

regulations governing changes in access 

to the Dwight D. Eisenhower National 

System of Interstate and Defense 

Highways (Interstate System). As a 

condition of funding for Federal-aid 

highway projects, Federal law prohibits 

State departments of transportation 

(State DOT) from adding any point of 

access to or from the Interstate System 

without the approval of the Secretary of 

Transportation. This final rule codifies 

and clarifies existing policies and 

practices regarding State DOT requests 

for, and FHWA approval of, changes in 

access to the Interstate System. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 9, 2024. Use of this new 

regulation is required for all State DOT 

requests for, and FHWA approval of, 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System documented in an Interstate 

Access Justification Report dated after 

December 9, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Clayton Wellman, Office of 

Preconstruction, Construction and 

Pavements (HICP–10), (202) 366–4658, 

or via email at 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

This document, as well as the notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and all 

comments received, may be viewed 

online through the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at 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 U.S. 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at www.GovInfo.gov. 

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 Access 

Justification Reports (IAJR) pertaining to 

certain changes in access to the 

Interstate System. 

Statement of the Problem and 

Regulatory History 

The FHWA published a NPRM on 

September 19, 2023 (88 FR 64388), 

seeking public comment on proposed 

amendments to its regulations to 

incorporate provisions governing 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System at new 23 CFR part 624. The 

FHWA received 57 comments submitted 

to the docket from 19 commenters 

representing State DOTs, individuals, 

and planning organizations. After 

carefully considering the comments 

received in response to the NPRM, 

FHWA is promulgating final regulations 

with changes from the proposed 

regulatory text. The FHWA did not 

receive comments on the new 

information collection associated with 

this proposal, specifically the submittal 

of two reports that State DOTs have 

submitted to FHWA for years under the 

existing policy: the IAJR and the 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) annual 

report. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88119 

To facilitate implementation of the 

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 IAJR 

submitted by the State DOT. The IAJR 

contains the project layouts, technical 

analyses, and other information 

supporting the change in access request. 

To date, FHWA has determined whether 

to approve the request based on the 

factors listed in FHWA’s policy on 

Access to the Interstate System (Policy). 

The FHWA initially developed and 

published the Policy in October 1990 

(55 FR 42670) due to numerous requests 

by States for additional clarity regarding 

the justification and documentation 

necessary to substantiate proposed 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System. The FHWA issued subsequent 

revisions in February 1998, August 

2009, and May 2017. The February 11, 

1998, revision (63 FR 7045) reflected the 

planning requirements of the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

(ISTEA) of 1991 (Pub. L. 102–240) as 

implemented in 23 CFR part 450, to 

clarify coordination between the access 

request and environmental processes, 

and to update language. The FHWA 

issued the 2009 Interstate Access Policy 

(2009 Policy), published August 27, 

2009 (74 FR 43743), to reflect the 

direction provided in Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

(Pub. L. 109–59) to clarify the 

operational and safety analysis and 

assessment of impacts that provides the 

basis for proposed changes in access to 

the Interstate System. The 2009 Policy 

also updated language to reference 

Federal laws, regulations, and FHWA 

policies. Finally, FHWA issued the 2017 

Interstate Access Policy (2017 Policy), 

dated May 22, 2017 (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 without 

including additional documentation 

related to other activities in the project 

development (i.e. planning, preliminary 

design, environmental analysis, final 

design, right-of-way acquisition, and 

construction) process. Codifying and 

clarifying current practices under the 

2017 Policy in regulation facilitates 

implementation of the statutory 

requirements regarding changes in 

access to the Interstate System. This 

process is separate from the dedesignation of Interstate segments that 

are processed through FHWA’s Office of 

Planning, Environment, and Realty, and 

this rulemaking does not impact the 

separate de-designation process. 

Interstate System Access Regulation at 

23 CFR Part 624 

This rule establishes requirements for 

the justification and documentation 

necessary for a State DOT to 

substantiate proposed changes in access 

to the Interstate System. These 

requirements are consistent with the 

existing policies and practices described 

above. It facilitates decisionmaking 

regarding proposed changes in access to 

the Interstate System in a manner that 

considers SO&E. Consistent with 23 

U.S.C. 109(a) and (b) and 23 U.S.C. 111, 

new or modified points of access to the 

Interstate System must be approved by 

FHWA if a Federal-aid project 

agreement has ever been executed on 

the segment of Interstate highway 

impacted by the proposal. To facilitate 

these approvals, such new or modified 

points of access must be developed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this regulation. In addition, new or 

modified points of access must comply 

with the requirements in 23 CFR part 

625, Design Standards for Highways. As 

discussed in § 624.8, change in access 

requests will not be accepted from other 

parties besides a State DOT. Thus, for 

projects that do not include State DOT 

involvement, such as discretionary 

grants awarded directly to local 

government entities, any change in 

access requests must come from the 

appropriate State DOT. 

The FHWA’s decision to approve new 

or revised access points to the Interstate 

System must be supported by 

information justifying and documenting 

the proposed change in access. 

Therefore, the decision to approve a 

request is dependent on the IAJR 

demonstrating that the proposed change 

in access will not result in a significant 

adverse impact on the Interstate System 

traffic operations or the safety in the 

project’s area of influence. In addition, 

the proposed access must connect to a 

public road, provide for all traffic 

movements, be designed to meet or 

exceed current standards, and 

demonstrate that the change in access 

can be clearly and adequately signed. 

This regulation identifies the 

requirements for the change in access 

request and documentation necessary to 

substantiate any request that is 

submitted by a State DOT to FHWA for 

approval. Once the State DOT’s analysis 

is completed, the analysis must be 

documented in the form of a standalone 

IAJR and submitted by the State DOT to 

FHWA for a SO&E determination. The 

FHWA expects that an IAJR will be 

clearly written for someone who is not 

familiar with the project, the area, or the 

State. The technical analysis presented 

in the IAJR enables FHWA to make an 

informed decision about safety and 

operational impacts of the change in 

access to the Interstate System and make 

the SO&E determination based on those 

impacts. 

The regulation does not alter or 

restrict the option for FHWA to delegate 

approval authority for the determination 

of SO&E acceptability of IAJRs to a State 

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

does it alter a State DOT’s ability to 

assume FHWA environmental review 

responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 326 

(State assumption of responsibility for 

categorical exclusions (CE)) or 23 U.S.C. 

327 (Surface Transportation Project 

Delivery Program). The FHWA may 

grant final approval of an Interstate 

System change in access request once a 

favorable SO&E determination has been 

made by FHWA, and the applicable 

transportation planning, conformity, 

and National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) procedures have been 

completed. In addition, the alternative 

selected and approved in the NEPA 

decision must also be the subject of a 

favorable SO&E determination. The 

FHWA retains authority for final 

approval of changes in access to the 

Interstate System under the regulation, 

consistent with current practice. 

The section-by-section analysis 

provides a detailed discussion of the 

final rule. 

Section-by-Section Discussion 

The FHWA received 57 comments 

submitted to the docket from 19 

commenters representing State DOTs, 

individuals, and planning organizations. 

The following summarizes the 

comments received and FHWA’s 

responses to the most significant issues 

raised in the comments. This section 

discusses the changes to 23 CFR part 

624 that FHWA is making in this final 

rule. For each section, FHWA describes 

the final rule, explains how, if at all, it 

differs from the proposed change 

described in the NPRM, and states the 

reasons for any changes from the 

proposal. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88120 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

General Comments 

Comment: The commenters 

recommended that the name of the 

technical report required for the 

justification and documentation of 

requests for changes in access to the 

Interstate System be changed from 

‘‘Interstate Justification Report’’ to a 

name that clearly identifies the purpose 

of the documentation that is provided in 

the report. 

Response: Section 111(e), Title 23 

U.S.C., uses the term, ‘‘Justification 

Report’’ when referring to the technical 

report developed for the purpose of 

justifying new or modified access to the 

Interstate System. States have used 

various names for these reports to more 

closely describe the purpose of the 

report. The FHWA does not propose to 

require States to use one name for the 

justification reports but agrees with the 

commenters that a name more 

consistent with the purpose of the 

report would be beneficial. The name of 

the report has been revised to ‘‘Interstate 

Access Justification Report’’ throughout 

part 624. 

Comment: A commenter inquired if 

the 2010 Interstate System Access 

Informational Guide will be revised to 

accompany this new Federal Rule. 

Response: The FHWA is examining 

the Interstate System Access 

Information Guide consistent with the 

provisions of this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding information to 

explain when the final rule will take 

effect and to which IAJRs it would 

apply. 

Response: The effective date of this 

regulation is shown above under DATES. 

Use of this new regulation is required 

for all State DOT requests for, and 

FHWA approval of, changes in access to 

the Interstate System documented in an 

IAJR dated after December 9, 2025. 

Comment: One individual 

recommended that the Policy be 

returned to the 2009 version of the 

Policy. 

Response: The streamlined Policy 

adopted in 2017 eliminated duplicative 

documentation with other project 

reviews and has been meeting the needs 

of the statute. No change was made in 

the final regulatory text. 

§ 624.1 Purpose 

Consistent with the proposed 

regulatory text contained in the 

September 19, 2023, NPRM, FHWA sets 

forth the purpose of Part 624 in § 624.1. 

No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

§ 624.3 Applicability 

Consistent with the proposed 

regulatory text, § 624.3 specifies the 

conditions under which proposed part 

624 is applicable. Changes were made to 

the proposed regulatory text to add two 

more exceptions in § 624.3(d) and (e) 

based on comments received. 

In § 624.3(d), an exception was added 

to exclude access to State maintenance 

facilities located within the Interstate 

right-of-way and not open to the public 

from this regulation. Section 111, Title 

23 U.S.C., provides the statutory 

authority for the Interstate System 

Access rulemaking. The statute applies 

to added or modified connections from 

outside of the right-of-way or 

connections between Interstate 

highways. State maintenance facilities 

located within the right-of-way with no 

connections outside of the right-of-way 

are not subject to these requirements. 

Access to these facilities should be 

evaluated by the State DOT to ensure 

the design of access points will not have 

a significant adverse impact on safety 

and operations. 

In § 624.3(e), an exception was added 

to exclude access points to non-freeway 

sections of the Interstate System located 

in Alaska or Puerto Rico with average 

daily traffic volumes less than 400 

vehicles per day from this regulation. 

The Interstate System in Alaska and 

Puerto Rico are subject to different 

design standards under 23 U.S.C. 103, 

therefore their Interstate System 

highways are sometimes two-lane rural 

highways. This exception applies to 

non-freeway Interstate System segments 

located in Alaska or Puerto Rico with 

average daily traffic volumes less than 

400 vehicles per day. In such cases, the 

FHWA Division Administrator shall 

determine the level of analysis required 

to secure FHWA approval of the access 

modification. 

Comment: Regarding the applicability 

of the regulation in § 624.3, a 

commenter recommended flexibility for 

Alaska to approve certain types of 

access that are less than interchange/ 

freeway situations, noting that Alaska is 

permitted to follow geometric and 

construction standards that differ from 

other States and that much of their 

Interstate system are low volume roads. 

They requested clarification be added to 

§ 624.3 Applicability or § 624.13 

Programmatic Agreement. 

Response: Section 111(e), Title 23 

U.S.C., provides some flexibility for 

State DOTs to approve justification 

reports through the Interstate System 

Access PA process. The FHWA can 

provide assistance with exploring the 

PA process and how it pertains to 

Alaska’s circumstances. The FHWA has 

revised § 624.3 to clarify an exception 

for low volume connections to nonfreeway segments of the Interstate 

System located in Alaska or Puerto Rico. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

clarification on whether the exemption 

in § 624.3(b) includes maintenance 

access to support facilities such as 

stormwater management ponds, and 

other maintenance installations, that are 

located within the Interstate System 

right-of-way. 

Response: Maintaining stormwater 

management ponds and other 

supportive infrastructure would be 

treated similar to mowing grass along 

the Interstate, which does not require 

Interstate Access approval. State DOTs 

would follow their processes and 

procedures to ensure that current 

standards are applied to develop and 

implement a traffic control plan that 

maintains safety and operations along 

the Interstate when maintenance 

activities are performed. This 

rulemaking will not impact routine 

maintenance activities performed 

within the right-of-way to maintain 

Interstate facilities. No change was 

made in the final regulatory text. 

However, in response to another 

comment, a new exception was added to 

the regulatory text in § 624.3 to provide 

an exception for State maintenance 

facilities located within the Interstate 

right-of-way. 

Comment: A commenter sought 

clarification on whether the exemption 

in § 624.3(b) applies to access to State 

DOT salt sheds or other maintenance 

facilities not open to the public and 

accessible to vehicles only to and from 

the Interstate System. 

Response: Access to State DOT salt 

sheds or other State maintenance 

facilities within the Interstate System 

right-of-way that are not open to the 

public should be evaluated by the State 

DOT to ensure the design of access 

points will not have a significant 

adverse impact on safety and 

operations. The FHWA has added an 

exception to the applicability of this 

regulation in § 624.3(d) to provide an 

exception for State maintenance 

facilities located within the Interstate 

right-of-way and not open to the public. 

Comment: Regarding the exception 

provision in § 624.3(c), a commenter 

noted that connection ramps between 

toll facilities and general-purpose lanes 

often have a significant impact on the 

operation and safety of the generalpurpose lanes, particularly concerning 

merging and diverging movements. 

They recommended further clarification 

regarding this exception. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88121 

Response: Section 111, Title 23 

U.S.C., provides the statutory authority 

for the Interstate System Access 

rulemaking. The FHWA interprets that 

the statute applies to added or modified 

connections from outside of the right-ofway or connections between Interstate 

highways. The FHWA Policy has been 

to exclude changes in access between 

managed lanes and general purpose 

lanes from FHWA review and action, as 

noted in the 2010 Interstate Access 

Informational Guide, section 3.3.2. The 

guide is available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

design/interstate/pubs/access/ 

access.pdf. The FHWA agrees that it is 

important for State DOTs to carefully 

consider the safety and operational 

impacts of connections between 

managed lanes and general purpose 

lanes, but an IAJR is not required 

because no connections are provided 

from outside of the right-of-way or 

between Interstate highways. No change 

was made in the final regulatory text. 

§ 624.5 Definitions 

Changes to the proposed regulatory 

text were made based on comments 

received pertaining to the definitions in 

§ 624.5. The definition for Access Point 

was revised to include connections to 

managed lanes, such as high-occupancy 

vehicle (HOV) lanes, value priced lanes, 

high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, or 

exclusive or special use lanes, since 

they are part of the Interstate System 

and access to them must be controlled. 

While connections between managed 

lanes and general purpose lanes on the 

same Interstate highway are exempted 

from this regulation under § 624.3(c), 

inclusion here clarifies that other 

connections to managed lanes are 

subject to this regulation. A definition 

for Final Approval was added for 

clarity. The name for the technical 

report submitted by the State was 

changed to Interstate Access 

Justification Report (IAJR) to clarify that 

the report addresses access to the 

Interstate System, not justification for 

the Interstate overall. Consistent with 

the revised definition of Access Point, 

the definition of the Interstate System 

was revised to include managed lanes 

because these are a critical part of the 

Interstate System. The definition of the 

Interstate System was also revised to 

include portions of frontage roads that 

function as part of an interchange by 

providing movements to and from the 

crossroad. Since publishing the 

proposed rule, FHWA has fielded 

technical assistance questions regarding 

frontage roads and determined it 

important to clarify this point in the 

definition, consistent with guidance 

found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ 

national_highway_system/interstate_

highway_system/frontage.cfm. Access to 

frontage roads should be fully 

controlled in the vicinity of ramp gores, 

as described in the American 

Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials A Policy on 

Design Standards—Interstate System, 

2016, which has been adopted by 

FHWA as a standard in § 625.4(a)(2). 

New or modified access to the frontage 

road is controlled by the State DOT and 

an IAJR under this regulation is not 

required. Therefore, the reference to a 

portion of frontage roads has not been 

added to the definition of Access Point 

in the final regulatory text. The 

definition for safety rest area was 

modified to limit the scope of the 

definition for the purposes of this 

regulation to safety rest areas located 

within the Interstate System right-ofway. 

Comment: One individual suggested 

that the definition of ‘‘Access Point’’ in 

§ 624.5 was not precise enough and 

could cause some ambiguity in the 

interpretation of what constitutes an 

access point to the Interstate System. 

They suggested FHWA specify the type 

and configuration of the access point, 

such as whether it is a ramp, a lane, a 

road, or a bridge, and how it connects 

to the Interstate mainline or crossroad. 

Response: The definition of ‘‘Access 

Point’’ is centered on connections to 

Interstate System elements such as 

through lanes or shoulders, managed 

lanes, collector-distributor roads, or 

ramps that would provide direct access 

to the Interstate System consistent with 

the 1990 and 1998 policies. It is not 

specific to the type and configuration of 

the access point. Consistent with 

changes to the definition of ‘‘Interstate 

System’’ in § 624.5, the definition for 

Access Point was revised to include 

connections to managed lanes, such as 

HOV lanes, value priced lanes, HOT 

lanes, or exclusive or special use lanes, 

since they are part of the Interstate 

System and access to them must be 

controlled. While connections between 

managed lanes and general purpose 

lanes on the same Interstate highway are 

exempted from this regulation under 

§ 624.3(c), inclusion here clarifies that 

other connections to managed lanes are 

subject to this regulation. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended expanding the definition 

of ‘‘Change in Access’’ in § 624.5 to 

exclude modification of an entrance or 

exit ramp location by less than 200 ft 

with no change in the number of access 

points or interchange configuration. 

Response: The FHWA has determined 

that establishing a specific distance is 

not appropriate because each location is 

unique. The 2010 Interstate Access 

Informational Guide, section 3.3.2 lists 

some project types that may not require 

FHWA review and action, including 

shifts in a ramp’s location within the 

same interchange configuration when 

the resulting ramp spacing will meet 

FHWA’s design criteria adopted in 

§ 625.4. No change was made in the 

final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended providing a definition in 

§ 624.5 for ‘‘Final Approval’’ because it 

is unclear to what the final approval 

applies. 

Response: The FHWA agrees with the 

suggestion and has added a definition 

for ‘‘Final Approval’’ in § 624.5. 

Comment: One individual 

recommended that the definition of 

‘‘Interstate System’’ be modified to 

include managed lanes (HOV lanes, 

etc.). 

Response: The FHWA agrees that 

managed lanes within the Interstate 

right-of-way function as part of 

Interstate and impact the operations of 

the Interstate facility. The definition for 

the ‘‘Interstate System’’ in § 624.5 was 

modified to include managed lanes 

(including HOV lanes, value priced 

lanes, HOT lanes, or exclusive or special 

use lanes). 

Comment: A commenter inquired 

whether a State DOT can install locked 

gate access for maintenance of the 

Interstate System without FHWA 

approval. 

Response: The change in definition of 

an ‘‘Access Point’’ in § 624.5 allows 

State DOTs to install locked gate access 

without FHWA approval if the access 

does not provide a connection to the 

through lanes or shoulders, managed 

lanes, collector-distributor roads, or 

ramps on the Interstate System. No 

change was made in the final regulatory 

text. 

Comment: A commenter inquired in 

§ 624.5 about the definition of ‘‘Access 

Point’’ differentiating between locked 

gate access for vehicular use versus an 

access point for bikes and pedestrians. 

Response: Locked gate access that 

provides a connection to through lanes 

or shoulders, managed lanes, collectordistributor roads, or ramps on the 

Interstate System will require an IAJR 

documenting an analysis to determine 

the safety, operations, and engineering 

aspects of the change. There is no 

distinction based on the mode of travel. 

Access points for pedestrians and 

bicyclists that do not connect to the 

roadways that comprise the Interstate 

System are not subject to this part. 

Coordination with FHWA is required to 

determine if a right-of-way use 

agreement is required in accordance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88122 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

with 23 CFR 710.405 and to evaluate 

any potential impact to the Interstate 

System safety or operations. No change 

was made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended amending the definition 

of ‘‘Safety Rest Area’’ in § 624.5 to 

include language that specifies the 

safety rest areas are within the Interstate 

right-of-way. 

Response: Part 624 provides 

requirements for consideration of 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System. Safety Rest Areas located 

outside of the Interstate right-of-way 

with no connection to the Interstate 

System are not subject to the 

requirements of part 624. To clarify this 

point, FHWA revised the definition in 

§ 624.5 of the final regulatory text to 

clarify that ‘‘Safety Rest Area’’ means a 

safety rest area that is located within the 

Interstate System right-of-way. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended clarifying the 

applicability of this part 624 to facilities 

serving active transportation users such 

as pedestrians, bicyclists, and 

micromobility users; and clarifying the 

intent of the NPRM language as it relates 

to all road users. A commenter also 

recommended clarifying the intended 

user application in the definitions or 

clarifying the steps required for bike/ 

pedestrian/etc. facilities only. 

Response: ‘‘Access point’’ is defined 

in § 624.5 as a permanent connection to 

facilities comprising the Interstate 

System, such as the through lanes or 

shoulders, managed lanes, collectordistributor roads, or ramps. There is no 

distinction based on the mode of travel. 

Access points for pedestrians and 

bicyclists that do not connect to the 

roadways that comprise the Interstate 

System are not subject to this part. 

Coordination with FHWA is required to 

determine if a right-of-way use 

agreement is required in accordance 

with 23 CFR 710.405 and to evaluate 

any potential impact to the Interstate 

System safety or operations. No change 

was made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

for additional clarity on the definition of 

area of influence and recommend 

expanding the definition to include 

more detail. 

Response: The definition of ‘‘Area of 

Influence’’ (AOI) in § 624.5 provides a 

basic understanding how the AOI 

extents are determined. Section 

624.11(b)(3) provides the framework for 

determining the minimum extent of the 

AOI. The safety and operational impacts 

of the proposed change in access impel 

the need to extend the limits, as 

necessary, to support making an 

informed decision based on the 

consequences of the project. The FHWA 

should be consulted early in this 

process to ensure the proposed limits 

are adequate to evaluate the request for 

a change in access to the Interstate 

System. No change was made in the 

final regulatory text. 

§ 624.7 Interstate System Access 

Requirements 

Consistent with the proposed 

regulatory text, § 624.7 specifies the 

requirements applicable to Interstate 

System access. The phrase ‘‘safety for all 

roadway users’’ was replaced with 

‘‘safety for all users of the transportation 

system’’ to be consistent with Agency 

guidance and clarify that this statement 

applied to all users of the transportation 

system, including trail users, rather than 

only users of the roadway. This change 

is also consistent with BIL language 

regarding Complete Streets. In addition, 

changes were made based on comments 

received. In § 624.7(a), the requirements 

regarding the currency for the 

operational and safety data used in the 

analysis have been separated to clarify 

that the safety analysis shall include the 

most recent 3 years of available safety 

data. The FHWA did not intend to limit 

safety data to 5 years. If the State DOT 

believes the older data is relevant based 

on the context of the project, it can be 

included in the safety data set for the 

project, as long as the most recent safety 

data is included. In § 624.7(f)(4), FHWA 

added an additional scenario where 

FHWA may grant an exception to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b) through 

(d) for locked gate access to a safety rest 

area from a local public road for the 

limited purpose of providing access to 

safety rest area employees, deliveries, 

and emergency vehicles. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended in § 624.7 that FHWA 

provide a time limitation guideline for 

microsimulation data so that there is no 

misunderstanding when agencies use 

microsimulation. 

Response: The purpose of this 

requirement is to provide a general 

limitation on the age of data used in a 

traffic analysis. The FHWA provides 

guidance for applying microsimulation 

modeling software in the FHWA Traffic 

Analysis Toolbox Volume III. (https://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ 

fhwahop18036/index.htm). 

Coordination with FHWA is 

recommended when developing State 

specific guidance for traffic analysis 

tools. No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about references in 

§ 624.7 of the preamble to the 3-year 

travel demand model update timeframe, 

noting that while there is a 3-year 

requirement for the development of the 

Metropolitan Transportation Plans in 

non-attainment areas, no baseline 

requirement for this frequent of a model 

update exists for areas in attainment 

with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

Response: The FHWA is not imposing 

new requirements for updating travel 

demand models on a 3-year cycle. The 

intent of § 624.7(a) is to ensure that 

reasonably current traffic data is being 

used in the operational analysis for 

justification reports since these reports 

provide the basis for decisionmaking. 

No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter sought 

clarification on whether the traffic data 

requirement in § 624.7 applies outside 

of the metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO). 

Response: The traffic data 

requirement in § 624.7 applies to all 

requests for new or modified access to 

the Interstate System. No change was 

made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter sought 

clarification on what constitutes a 

partial interchange, particularly where a 

single interchange serves more than one 

crossroad in § 624.7. 

Response: A partial interchange is an 

interchange that does not provide all of 

the basic movements, as defined in 

§ 624.5. Movements can be 

accomplished utilizing more than one 

crossroad in close proximity where 

those crossroads are connected by 

frontage roads without being considered 

a partial interchange. For example, a 

split diamond interchange configuration 

can reduce the number of movements 

within each interchange and serve 

multiple crossroads. No change was 

made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter sought 

clarification regarding the § 624.7 

preamble discussion on existing and 

projected land uses that should be 

examined as part of the proposed access 

modification. 

Response: Section 624.7(a) requires 

that proposals for modified access 

consider the traffic operations and 

safety for all users of the transportation 

system in the project’s area of influence, 

both now and in the future. Examining 

existing and projected land uses are a 

critical factor in these analyses. The 

scope of the review should include local 

future land use plans and approved 

developments. The design should be 

compatible with the communities’ goals 

and needs that are demonstrated in their 

plans and policies which ensures a 

design that fits land use contexts of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88123 

community. No change was made in the 

final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended in § 624.7 that FHWA 

consider specifically mentioning the 

Highway Safety Manual methodologies. 

Response: There are several safety 

analyses tools and techniques 

(quantitative or qualitative) that can be 

deployed to analyze build and no-build 

configurations of a proposed access 

modification. The FHWA does not 

require the use of any specific tool. The 

FHWA encourages the use of 

appropriate tools in a scope 

commensurate with the project 

complexity. No change was made in the 

final regulatory text. 

Comment: Commenters suggested in 

§ 624.7 that FHWA include more clarity 

on the definition of a significant adverse 

impact and asked whether State DOTs 

should work with FHWA to determine 

the significance of impacts. Two 

individuals suggested that FHWA 

provide objective and quantifiable 

criterion for determining the 

significance of an impact and provide 

more requirements in metro areas for 

determining whether a proposed change 

in access has a significant adverse 

impact on the safety or operations of the 

Interstate System. 

Response: Defining a threshold for 

significant adverse impact is difficult 

without understanding the context of 

the unique project conditions and the 

users impacted. Based on the safety and 

operations analyses, judgement is used 

to determine whether an adverse impact 

is significant and employ mitigation to 

address concerns identified. State DOTs 

are encouraged to coordinate with 

FHWA to assist with determining the 

significance of impacts. No change was 

made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter is concerned 

that in § 624.7(a) adding ‘‘safety for all 

users within the project’s area of 

influence’’ would add time to project 

scoping to define area of influence for 

each individual Interstate Access Point 

Approval project. 

Response: The DOT is committed to 

the long-term goal of reaching zero 

roadway fatalities and has adopted the 

Safe System Approach to help address 

the crisis on our roadways. The Safe 

System Approach is the guiding 

paradigm of the National Roadway 

Safety Strategy (NRSS), and we are 

dedicated to implementing the actions 

outlined in the NRSS to move us closer 

to our zero deaths goal. Safety for all 

users, rather than focusing only on 

motor vehicle operators, must be our 

focus to reach this goal. This provision 

of § 624.7(a) ensures that proposals to 

modify access examine the impacts to 

all users of the transportation system 

and seize opportunities to improve the 

safety for vulnerable users when 

developing an access request. To that 

end, the existing and projected land use 

along the crossroad should be examined 

and opportunities to improve 

connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle 

travel should be considered as part of 

the access modification. This ensures 

the proposed design fits the land use 

contexts in the community in which the 

project is built. No change was made in 

the final regulatory text. 

Comment: Regarding § 624.7(a), 

several commenters asked for 

clarification on whether data sets that 

include crash data more than 5 years old 

may be utilized in the safety evaluation. 

Response: The purpose of this 

requirement is to ensure the most recent 

crash data available is being used to 

support the analysis. Using crash data 

that is outdated would not provide an 

accurate assessment of the safety 

performance of the facility because there 

may have been significant changes to 

travel patterns and conditions as 

evidenced by the need for the proposed 

access modifications. If the data 

collection includes data that is more 

than 5 years old and the State DOT 

believes the older data is relevant based 

on the context of the project, it can be 

included in the data set for the project, 

as long as the most recent data is also 

included. Coordination with FHWA in 

these situations would be recommended 

to discuss the justification for using 

older data in addition to recent data. 

The FHWA agrees that clarification is 

needed and revised § 624.7(a) to require 

the use of at least the most recent 3 

years of available safety data. 

Comment: Commenters recommend 

extending the time period in § 624.7(a) 

for which traffic and safety data is 

accepted for analysis beyond 5 years 

with a traffic validation. 

Response: In FHWA’s experience, the 

5-year window will generally allow 

State DOTs to utilize the latest model 

developed by the MPO in which the 

project falls, if applicable. If the State 

DOT is performing an analysis and the 

MPO data is more than 5 years old, the 

State may develop their own data 

suitable for the analysis. It is critical for 

FHWA to evaluate a proposed access 

modification based on reasonably 

current data, keeping in mind that the 

State DOT may not begin construction 

for up to another 5-year period 

following an affirmative SO&E 

determination, in accordance with 

§ 624.9(e). No change was made in the 

final regulatory text. 

Comment: Commenters recommend 

in § 624.7(a) that FHWA clarify when 

the 5-year time period will be applied, 

specifically at the time of submission to 

FHWA. 

Response: This requirement applies to 

the time period when the IAJR is 

submitted to FHWA. However, if there 

are significant delays in addressing 

initial FHWA comments and 

resubmitting the report to FHWA, then 

there may be a need for the State DOT 

to verify the data. State DOTs are 

encouraged to coordinate with FHWA 

early in the process when developing 

requests for Interstate System access to 

avoid significant delays to the review 

and approval processes. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended adding language to 

§ 624.7(a) to suggest that safety hotspots 

identified within the area of influence 

but outside of the project limits should 

be communicated to the jurisdiction 

responsible for that roadway. 

Response: The intent of the area of 

influence is to determine the 

comprehensive safety and operational 

impacts of the proposed access 

modification. If it is determined that the 

project is significantly impacting safety 

within the area of influence, then the 

project should mitigate for the impacts. 

The State DOT may need to coordinate 

with other jurisdictions to ensure local 

impacts are addressed. No change was 

made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended in § 624.7(a) replacing 

the ‘‘or’’ with an ‘‘and’’, and inserting 

the ‘‘20-year’’ traffic projection. 

Response: The FHWA uses ‘‘or’’ to 

indicate that both the operations of the 

Interstate System and safety for all users 

in the projects area of influence are 

important and should be considered 

when developing a project. If there is a 

significant impact to either, the project 

would need to adequately address the 

impacts identified. Regarding future 

traffic projections, the 20-year traffic 

projection requirement is contained in 

23 U.S.C. 109(b) and must be addressed 

as part of the analysis, but is not the 

focal point of this regulation. No change 

was made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter sought 

clarification on whether § 624.7(b) 

would prohibit a private road or 

commercial entrance from being located 

directly across a public roadway from 

the access point. 

Response: The intent of this provision 

is to prevent access point connections 

that connect directly to private 

developments, parking lots, or private 

roads to ensure that the access point 

connection will remain open to the 

public and receive routine maintenance. 

A private connection across the public 

roadway from the terminus of the ramp 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88124 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

at a crossroad is not expressly 

prohibited. However, as stated in A 

Policy on Design Standards—Interstate 

System published by the American 

Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials in 2016, which 

is the adopted standard under 

§ 625.4(a)(2), controlling access on 

crossroads in the vicinity of 

interchanges can provide significant 

benefits to traffic operations and safety 

performance through the interchange 

area. For example, if a connection is 

made opposite an exit ramp terminus, 

the design needs to mitigate the 

potential for wrong way movements on 

the exit ramp. No change was made in 

the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter recommends 

adding language that would allow gated 

access for rest area employees and 

deliveries via local roads without direct 

access to the Interstate. 

Response: The FHWA has determined 

that allowing a locked gate access for 

the limited purpose of providing access 

to safety rest area employees, deliveries, 

and emergency vehicles via local roads 

would be in the public interest by 

removing this traffic from the Interstate 

System. The FHWA has revised 

§ 624.7(f) to add an exception for this 

purpose. 

§ 624.9 Approval Process 

Consistent with the proposed 

regulatory text, § 624.9 sets out the 

approval process for a change in access 

to the Interstate System. The phrase 

‘‘congestion management process’’ was 

removed from § 624.9(d)(1) because this 

process is covered in the transportation 

planning regulations at 23 CFR part 

450—Planning Assistance and 

Standards. A minor change to the 

proposed regulatory text was made to 

change the reference to the technical 

report from IJR to IAJR, consistent with 

the revised definition. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended including an appeal 

process for when the FHWA’s decision 

differs from the State DOT’s 

recommendation. 

Response: The FHWA is supportive of 

State DOTs when it comes to developing 

and building projects. Early 

coordination between the State DOT 

and FHWA can help ensure that FHWA 

concerns are addressed early in the 

process. In the event FHWA’s decision 

differs from the State DOT’s 

recommendation, FHWA is open to 

having discussions with the State DOT 

to work on finding a path forward to 

ensure the project meets the safety and 

operational needs of the Interstate 

System Access process. No change was 

made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: Commenters recommended 

in § 624.9 that FHWA provide 

timeframes for the review and the steps 

involved in the approval process. 

Response: Section 624.9 provides the 

framework of the process to receive 

approval for a proposed change in 

access. The State DOT is responsible for 

developing their policies and 

procedures as related to submitting 

requests for proposed changes in access. 

The State DOT may coordinate with 

FHWA to determine specific timeframes 

based on their policies and procedures. 

No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter seeks 

clarification in § 624.9(d) on whether 

the SO&E determination can be made 

after a favorable NEPA decision. 

Response: The SO&E determination 

can be made before or after receiving an 

approved NEPA decision. No change 

was made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter seeks 

clarification on whether the NEPA 

decision or the SO&E determination can 

occur independently from one another. 

They also seek to clarify, if a State DOT 

can decide to advance the NEPA process 

or the IAJR first. 

Response: In § 624.9(d), FHWA 

provides the conditions that must be 

met for a State DOT to receive Final 

approval for a proposed change in 

access. The FHWA does not determine 

the order in which a State DOT 

advances the transportation planning, 

conformity, and NEPA requirements or 

seeks a SO&E determination for a 

proposed change in access. A State DOT 

can decide to advance either the NEPA 

process or the IAJR first or in parallel. 

No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

Comment: In § 624.9(e), a commenter 

recommended extending the time 

period in between affirmative SO&E 

determination and proceeding to 

construction to 6 years while keeping a 

maximum of 10 years from the time the 

data was collected. 

Response: The 5-year time period 

commencing after an affirmative SO&E 

determination for proceeding to 

construction provides up to 10 years to 

develop and begin construction on a 

project, but the 10-year window is not 

specified in the regulation, as proposed. 

If the project has not progressed to 

construction within 5 years of receiving 

an affirmative SO&E determination, 

FHWA has flexibility to allow the 

project to proceed to construction based 

on verification from the State DOT 

demonstrating that the requirements of 

§ 624.7 are still met. No change was 

made in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for extending the 

time period for projects to commence 

construction from 3 to 5 years in 

§ 624.9(e). Several commenters would 

also welcome a further increase to the 

8 years previously allowed under the 

2009 Policy. 

Response: In FHWA’s experience, 5 

years strikes the right balance of moving 

forward with projects based on 

reasonably current data versus requiring 

repetitive updates of access 

modification proposals by State DOTs. 

No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

§ 624.11 Interstate Access Justification 

Report 

Consistent with the proposed 

regulatory text, § 624.11 sets out the 

minimum requirements for the technical 

report submitted by the State for a 

change in access to the Interstate 

System. A minor change to the proposed 

section title and regulatory text was 

made to change the name of the 

technical report to Interstate Access 

Justification Report (IAJR), consistent 

with the revised definition. 

Comment: A commenter seeks 

clarification in § 624.11(a) on what 

‘‘other documents’’ means. 

Response: ‘‘Other documents’’ means 

any document other than the IAJR that 

are often referenced in the IAJR but may 

not be available to the FHWA reviewer. 

As noted in the parentheses, these 

include feasibility studies, NEPA 

documents, or preliminary engineering 

reports that were developed by a State 

DOT during their project development 

process. No change was made in the 

final regulatory text. 

Comment: In § 624.11(b)(3), a 

commenter recommended revising the 

minimum limits of the Area of Influence 

to an adjacent interchange within 2 

miles of the proposed change in access, 

rather than the adjacent interchange 

with no limit on the distance. 

Response: Section 624.11(d) provides 

FHWA with flexibility to determine the 

extent of the safety and operational 

analysis based on the complexity of the 

project. The State DOT can coordinate 

with FHWA to discuss and provide 

justification for proposed analysis limits 

for a project. No change was made in the 

final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that § 624.11(b)(3) 

provide flexibility to shrink as well as 

expand the analysis limits based on the 

project complexity. 

Response: Section § 624.11(b)(3) 

provides flexibility to extend the 

analysis to ensure that the limits are 

appropriate to fully understand the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88125 

impact of the proposed changes in 

access on the Interstate System and 

local road network. Section § 624.11(d) 

provides flexibility to determine the 

extent of the analysis (shrink the limits, 

if justified) based on the complexity of 

the project. The State DOT can 

coordinate with FHWA to discuss and 

provide justification for proposed 

analysis limits for a specific 

modification request. In addition, the 

2010 Interstate Access Informational 

Guide, section 3.3.2 lists some project 

types that may not require FHWA 

review and action. No change was made 

in the final regulatory text. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that § 624.11(c) include more detailed 

language on wrong way movements to 

focus on isolated exit ramps without a 

corresponding entrance ramp. 

Response: Section 624.11(c) provides 

the requirements and considerations 

that must be addressed when seeking 

approval for a partial interchange. The 

proposed regulatory text requires that 

the potential for wrong-way movements 

be addressed as part of the justification 

for a partial interchange, while allowing 

State DOTs to provide the justification 

appropriate for each specific proposal. 

No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

§ 624.13 Programmatic Agreement 

Consistent with the proposed 

regulatory text, § 624.13 specifies the 

provisions a State DOT must follow if 

they wish to enter into a PA with FHWA 

that would delegate to the State DOT 

responsibility for making SO&E 

determinations on behalf of FHWA in 

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

section 1318(d) of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21). No change was made in the final 

regulatory text. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Rulemaking Policies and Procedures 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this rule a 

significant action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. 

This action complies with E.O.s 12866 

and 13563 to improve regulation. This 

final rule codifies existing policy, 

processes and procedures relating to 

new or modified access to the Interstate 

System. The FHWA anticipates that this 

rule does not adversely affect, in any 

material way, any sector of the 

economy. In addition, the rule does not 

interfere with any action taken or 

planned by another agency and does not 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

any entitlements, grants, user fees, or 

loan programs. The rule also does not 

raise any novel legal or policy issues. 

The FHWA anticipates that the 

economic impact of this rulemaking will 

be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory 

evaluation is not necessary. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

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

601–612), FHWA has evaluated the 

effects of this rule on small entities, 

such as local governments and 

businesses. Based on the evaluation, 

FHWA has determined that this action 

is not anticipated to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rule 

codifies the processes that are currently 

in-use by State DOTs when changes in 

access to the Interstate System are 

sought, and States are not included in 

the definition of small entity set forth in 

5 U.S.C. 601. The FHWA has 

determined that the projected impact 

upon small entities that utilize Federalaid highway program funding for the 

development of highway improvement 

projects on the National Highway 

System is expected to be negligible. 

Therefore, FHWA certifies that the 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The FHWA has determined that this 

rule does not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 109 Stat. 48) (UMRA). The 

actions in this final rule will not result 

in the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $168 million or 

more in any one year (when adjusted for 

inflation). In addition, the definition of 

‘‘Federal Mandate’’ in the UMRA 

excludes financial assistance of the type 

in which State, local, or Tribal 

governments have authority to adjust 

their participation in the program in 

accordance with changes made in the 

program by the Federal Government. 

The Federal-aid highway program 

permits this type of flexibility. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

The FHWA has analyzed this final 

rule in accordance with the principles 

and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. 

The FHWA has determined that this 

action does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

The FHWA has also determined that 

this action does not preempt any State 

law or State regulation or affect the 

States’ ability to discharge traditional 

State governmental functions. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations implementing E.O. 

12372 regarding intergovernmental 

consultation on Federal programs and 

activities apply to this program. This 

E.O. applies because State and local 

governments are directly affected by the 

regulation, which is a condition on 

Federal highway funding. Local entities 

should refer to the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Program Number 

20.205, Highway Planning and 

Construction, for further information. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The FHWA identified a paperwork 

burden and published the required 

notices at https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2023/09/19/2023-20218/interstatesystem-access. The OMB control 

number for the information collection is 

2125–0679. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The FHWA has analyzed this final 

rule for the purposes of the NEPA (42 

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

that it qualifies for a CE under 23 CFR 

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

promulgation of regulations, and that no 

unusual circumstances are present 

under 23 CFR 771.117(b). Categorically 

excluded actions meet the criteria for 

CEs under the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations and 

under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally 

do not require any further NEPA 

approvals by FHWA. This rule would 

not affect the NEPA process for 

Interstate access requests and FHWA 

will not grant a project final approval 

until the NEPA process was completed. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this final 

rule under E.O. 13175 and anticipates 

that it will not have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, 

will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments, and will not preempt 

Tribal law. This final rule will not 

impose any direct compliance 

requirements on Indian Tribal 

governments nor will it have any 

economic or other impacts on the 

viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, the 

funding and consultation requirements 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88126 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

The E.O. 12898 requires that each 

Federal Agency make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minorities 

and low-income populations. The 

FHWA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not raise any 

environmental justice issues. 

Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule can be found in 

the Abstract section of the Department’s 

Unified Agenda entry for this 

rulemaking at [https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

202310&RIN=2125-AF89]. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN number 

contained in the heading of this 

document can be used to cross-reference 

this action with the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 624 

Grant programs—transportation, 

Highways and roads, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.81 and 1.85. 

Kristen R. White, 

Acting Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

FHWA amends title 23 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, by adding part 624 

to read as follows: 

PART 624—INTERSTATE SYSTEM 

ACCESS 

Sec. 

624.1 Purpose. 

624.3 Applicability. 

624.5 Definitions. 

624.7 Interstate System access 

requirements. 

624.9 Approval process. 

624.11 Interstate Access Justification 

Report. 

624.13 Programmatic Agreement. 

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

111; 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.85. 

§ 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 paragraphs 

(b) through (e) of this section, this part 

is applicable to all segments designated 

as part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower 

National System of Interstate and 

Defense Highways (Interstate System) 

for which Federal-aid highway funds or 

other funds administered under title 23, 

United States Code, have been used in 

the past or are used to develop a project. 

(b) This part is not applicable to 

ramps providing access to safety rest 

areas, information centers, weigh 

stations, and truck inspection stations 

located within the Interstate right-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. 

(d) This part is not applicable to State 

maintenance facilities that are located 

within the Interstate System right-ofway and not open to the public. 

(e) This part is not applicable to 

access points to non-freeway Interstate 

System segments located in Alaska or 

Puerto Rico with average daily traffic 

volumes less than 400 vehicles per day. 

In such cases, the provisions of 23 

U.S.C. 111 apply and the FHWA 

Division Administrator shall determine 

the level of analysis required to secure 

FHWA approval of the access 

modification. 

§ 624.5 Definitions. 

The following terms used in this part 

are defined as follows: 

Access point. Any permanent 

connection (including those metered or 

closed at times) to the through lanes or 

shoulders, managed lanes, collectordistributor roads, or ramps on the 

Interstate System, including ‘‘locked 

gate access’’. 

Area of influence. The geographic 

extent to which a proposed change in 

access will affect traffic operations and 

safety. 

Change in access. The addition of a 

new, or modification of an existing, 

interchange or access point along the 

Interstate System. 

Final approval. Acceptance for the 

proposed change in access granted by 

FHWA upon completion of the 

appropriate transportation planning, air 

quality conformity, and environmental 

review requirements under National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

receiving concurrence on the Safety, 

Operations, and Engineering (SO&E) 

determination. 

Interchange. A system of 

interconnecting roadways in 

conjunction with one or more grade 

separations that provides for the 

movement of traffic between two or 

more roadways or highways on different 

levels. 

Interstate Access Justification Report 

(IAJR). A technical report that 

documents the safety, operations, and 

engineering aspects of a proposed 

change in access to the Interstate System 

and demonstrates that the proposal 

meets the provisions of this part. 

Interstate System. The term 

‘‘Interstate System’’ as defined in 23 

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

shoulders; existing, new, or modified 

ramps; collector-distributor roads; 

managed lanes (including highoccupancy vehicle lanes, value priced 

lanes, high-occupancy toll lanes, or 

exclusive or special use lanes); ramp 

termini; and portions of frontage roads 

that function as part of an interchange. 

For purposes of this part, the Interstate 

System shall be limited to those routes 

for which Federal-aid highway funds or 

other funds administered under title 23, 

United States Code, have been used in 

the past or will be used to develop a 

project. 

Partial interchange. An interchange 

that does not provide for each of the 

eight basic movements (or four basic 

movements in the case of a three-legged 

interchange). 

Programmatic Agreement (PA). 

Agreement between FHWA and a State 

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

State to review and make the Safety, 

Operations, and Engineering (SO&E) 

determination. 

Public road. The term ‘‘public road’’ 

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

Safety, Operations, and Engineering 

(SO&E) determination. Technical 

determination of whether the proposed 

location, configuration, geometric 

design, and signing related to the 

proposed change in access may be 

reasonably expected to serve the 

anticipated traffic of the Interstate 

System in a manner that is conducive to 

safety, durability, and economy of 

maintenance. 

Safety rest area. The term ‘‘safety rest 

area’’ as defined in 23 CFR 752.3(a) that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88127 

is located within the Interstate System 

right-of-way. 

§ 624.7 Interstate System access 

requirements. 

(a) The proposed change in access to 

the Interstate System shall not result in 

a significant adverse impact on the 

Interstate System traffic operations or 

the safety for all users of the 

transportation system in the project’s 

area of influence, as demonstrated by 

operational and safety analyses based on 

both the current and future traffic 

projections using traffic data that is no 

more than 5 years old and at least the 

most recent 3 years of available safety 

data. 

(b) Interstate System access points 

shall connect only to a public road. 

Connections directly to private 

developments, parking lots, or private 

roads are prohibited. 

(c) Connections from outside of the 

Interstate System right-of-way to safety 

rest areas, information centers, weigh 

stations, and truck inspection stations 

located within the Interstate System 

right-of-way are prohibited. 

(d) Each interchange shall provide for 

all traffic movements. 

(e) A proposed change in access shall 

be designed to meet the standards in 

accordance with 23 CFR part 625 or 

have approved exceptions and shall 

comply with 23 CFR part 655. 

(f) On a case by case basis, FHWA 

may grant exceptions to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b) through 

(d) of this section for: 

(1) Locked gate access to private 

property for purposes of public safety; 

(2) Locked gate access from an 

information center, weigh station, and 

truck inspection station to a local road 

for the purposes of public safety; 

(3) Access from a safety rest area to an 

adjacent publicly owned conservation 

and recreation area if access to this area 

is available only through the safety rest 

area as allowed under 23 CFR 752.5(d); 

(4) Locked gate access from a local 

public road to the safety rest area for the 

limited purpose of providing access to 

safety rest area employees, deliveries, 

and emergency vehicles; or 

(5) A partial interchange where 

necessary to provide special access, 

such as to managed lanes or park and 

ride lots, or where factors such as the 

social, economic, and environmental 

impacts of a full interchange justify an 

exception. 

§ 624.9 Approval process. 

(a) To propose a change in access to 

the Interstate System, the State DOT 

shall submit electronically to FHWA a 

request letter and an IAJR complying 

with § 624.11 demonstrating that the 

proposed change in access meets the 

requirements of this part. Change in 

access requests will not be accepted 

from other parties besides a State DOT. 

(b) Approval of a change in access to 

the Interstate System requires a SO&E 

determination and a final approval. 

(c) The SO&E determination shall be 

based on the safety, operations, and 

engineering aspects of the request as 

documented in an IAJR meeting the 

requirements of this part. The FHWA 

shall make the SO&E determination, 

except where FHWA has delegated to a 

State DOT the authority to make the 

SO&E determination on behalf of FHWA 

by entering into a PA that meets the 

requirements of § 624.13. 

(d) If a favorable SO&E determination 

is made, FHWA will consider whether 

final approval is appropriate for the 

proposed change in access to the 

Interstate System. Final approval may 

only be granted by FHWA and 

constitutes a major Federal action under 

NEPA. Final approval may be granted if 

the following conditions are met: 

(1) Applicable transportation 

planning, conformity, and NEPA 

procedures have been completed. 

(2) The alternative covered by the 

favorable SO&E determination is of the 

same scope and design as the alternative 

selected and approved in the NEPA 

decision. 

(e) If the project has not progressed to 

construction within 5 years of receiving 

an affirmative SO&E determination, 

FHWA may require the State DOT to 

provide verification that the 

requirements of § 624.7 continue to be 

met based on current and projected 

future conditions. 

§ 624.11 Interstate Access Justification 

Report. 

(a) The IAJR shall be a standalone 

report. Relevant information from other 

documents (such as feasibility studies, 

NEPA documents or preliminary 

engineering reports) must be included 

in the appropriate section of the IAJR. 

(b) At a minimum, an IAJR submitted 

to FHWA shall include all of the 

following, except as provided under 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(1) A description and overview of the 

proposed change in access including a 

project location map and distances to 

adjacent interchanges. 

(2) Preliminary design documents 

sufficient to demonstrate the geometric 

viability of the proposal. The design 

documents shall include the design 

criteria, existing geometry overlaid with 

clearly labeled proposed geometric plan 

views, lane configuration schematics, 

typical sections, control-of-access lines, 

interchange spacing, ramp spacing, and 

other design features necessary to 

evaluate the proposed design. 

(3) Operational and safety analyses 

that evaluate the impact of the proposed 

change in access on the Interstate 

System and local road network 

extending to the following area of 

influence limits at a minimum: 

(i) Along the Interstate System, and 

interchanging freeway if applicable, to 

the adjacent existing or proposed 

interchange on either side of the 

proposed change in access, extending 

further as needed to ensure the limits of 

the analysis are appropriate to fully 

understand the impact of the proposed 

change in access on the Interstate 

System. 

(ii) Along each crossroad to the first 

major intersection on either side of the 

proposed change in access, extending 

further as needed to demonstrate the 

safety and operational impacts that the 

proposed change in access and other 

transportation improvements may have 

on the local road network. 

(4) A conceptual plan showing the 

type and location of the signs proposed 

to support the proposed design. 

(c) The IAJR for a proposed partial 

interchange shall meet the following 

additional requirements. 

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

the operational and safety analyses to 

the partial interchange option. The IAJR 

shall justify the necessity for a partial 

interchange alternative. 

(2) The IAJR shall describe why a 

partial interchange is proposed and 

include the mitigation proposed to 

compensate for the missing basic 

movements, including wayfinding 

signage, local intersection 

improvements, mitigation of driver 

expectation leading to wrong-way 

movements on ramps, and other 

proposed strategies as necessary. 

(3) The IAJR shall describe whether 

future provision of a full interchange is 

precluded by the proposed design. 

(d) FHWA will consider the 

complexity of a change in access when 

determining the extent of the safety and 

operational analysis and the format of 

the IAJR. 

§ 624.13 Programmatic Agreement. 

A State DOT may submit to FHWA a 

written request to enter into a PA with 

FHWA that delegates to the State DOT 

the authority to make the SO&E 

determination on behalf of FHWA in 

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

the requirements of this part. 

(a) A PA may allow a State DOT to 

make the SO&E determination for all or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88128 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. The FHWA 

will examine: 

(i) State DOT policies, standard 

operating procedures, and processes, 

either in place or modified as needed to 

carry out the requirements of the PA; 

(ii) Documentation demonstrating the 

processes and guidance that have been 

developed and implemented to support 

the development, analysis, 

documentation, review, and potential 

processing of each type of proposed 

change in access to the Interstate System 

to which the terms of the PA would 

apply; 

(iii) Documentation demonstrating the 

process, guidance, assistance, and 

oversight the State DOT will provide to 

support local agencies (e.g., cities, 

counties, toll authorities, MPOs) that 

may propose or submit requests to the 

State DOT for changes in access to the 

Interstate System to which the terms of 

the PA would apply; 

(iv) Documentation demonstrating 

that the State DOT has the expertise and 

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

needed to carry out the requirements of 

the PA; 

(v) Documentation of State DOT 

procedures to provide the necessary 

oversight, monitoring, and annual 

reporting to FHWA to ensure the 

changes in access to the Interstate 

System are processed consistent with 

the terms of the PA; and 

(vi) Any other factors deemed 

necessary by the Secretary. 

(2) Establish, with input from the 

State DOT, the scope and conditions for 

the State DOT’s review of change in 

access requests and the process by 

which the State DOT will make the 

SO&E determination. 

(d) A PA shall require that the State 

DOT submit electronically an annual 

report to FHWA summarizing its 

performance under the PA. The report 

shall, at a minimum: 

(1) Include the results of all changes 

in access to the Interstate System that 

were processed and received a SO&E 

determination under the terms of the PA 

for the previous calendar year; 

(2) Summarize the changes in access 

to the Interstate System that the State 

DOT plans to process in the coming 

calendar year; 

(3) Assess the effectiveness of and 

verify that all changes in access to the 

Interstate System processed through this 

agreement were evaluated and 

processed in a manner consistent with 

the terms of this PA; 

(4) Identify any areas where 

improvements are needed and what 

actions the State DOT is taking to 

implement those improvements; and 

(5) Include actions taken by the State 

DOT as part of its quality control efforts. 

(e) When all concerns have been 

addressed to the satisfaction of the 

Secretary, the PA may be executed. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25757 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Investment Security 

31 CFR Part 802 

RIN 1505–AC88 

Definition of Military Installation and 

the List of Military Installations in the 

Regulations Pertaining to Certain 

Transactions by Foreign Persons 

Involving Real Estate in the United 

States 

AGENCY: Office of Investment Security, 

Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

regulations of the Committee on Foreign 

Investment in the United States 

pertaining to transactions involving the 

purchase or lease by, or concession to, 

a foreign person of certain real estate in 

the United States. Specifically, the final 

rule amends the regulations by adding, 

moving, and removing certain military 

installations on the appendix at parts 1 

and 2; makes corresponding revisions to 

the definition of the term ‘‘military 

installation’’; makes technical 

amendments to update the name or 

location information for certain military 

installations already listed on the 

appendix; and amends the applicability 

rule regarding changes to the 

regulations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 9, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meena R. Sharma, Director, Office of 

Investment Security Policy and 

International Relations, at U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, 1500 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20220; telephone: (202) 622–3425; 

email: CFIUS.Regulations@treasury.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The regulations at part 802 to title 31 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (part 

802) implement the provisions in 

section 721 of the Defense Production 

Act (DPA) of 1950, as amended, which 

are codified at 50 U.S.C. 4565 (section 

721), and establish the process and 

procedures of the Committee on Foreign 

Investment in the United States (CFIUS 

or the Committee) with respect to 

reviewing transactions involving the 

purchase or lease by, or concession to, 

a foreign person of certain real estate in 

the United States. Section 721 

authorizes the president or his designee 

(i.e., CFIUS) to review certain real estate 

transactions by foreign persons where 

the real estate at issue is located in the 

United States and (a) is located within, 

or will function as part of, an air or 

maritime port; or (b) is in close 

proximity to a United States military 

installation or another facility or 

property of the U.S. Government that is 

sensitive for reasons relating to national 

security; could reasonably provide the 

foreign person the ability to collect 

intelligence on activities being 

conducted at such an installation, 

facility, or property; or could otherwise 

expose national security activities at 

such an installation, facility, or property 

to the risk of foreign surveillance. 

The appendix to the current 

regulations at part 802 (appendix A or 

the appendix) identifies certain military 

installations around which certain real 

estate transactions are subject to 

CFIUS’s jurisdiction. As noted in the 

preamble to the final rule establishing 

part 802 in 2020 (see 85 FR 3158), the 

military installations listed in the 

appendix were identified by the U.S. 

Department of Defense (Department of 

Defense) based upon an evaluation of 

national security considerations. The 

specific military installations are listed 

in appendix A by name and location (or 

township/range), and section 802.227 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1