Revision of Thirteen Controlling Criteria for Design and Documentation of Design Exceptions, 27187-27191 [2016-10299]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2015–0020]
Revision of Thirteen Controlling
Criteria for Design and Documentation
of Design Exceptions
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The geometric design
standards for projects on the National
Highway System (NHS) are incorporated
by reference in FHWA regulations in 23
CFR 625 and apply regardless of
funding source. These design standards
are comprehensive in nature, covering a
multitude of design characteristics,
while allowing flexibility in application.
Exceptions may be approved on a
project basis for designs that do not
conform to the minimum or limiting
criteria set forth in the standards,
policies, and standard specifications.
The FHWA is updating its 1985
policy regarding controlling criteria for
design, applicable to projects on the
NHS, to reduce the number of
controlling criteria from 13 to 10, and to
apply only 2 of those criteria to low
speed roadways. The FHWA is also
issuing guidance to clarify when design
exceptions are needed and the
documentation that is expected to
support such requests. The FHWA’s
guidance memorandum, which is
available in the docket (FHWA–2015–
0020), transmits this policy to FHWA
field offices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions, contact Elizabeth Hilton,
Geometric Design Engineer, FHWA
Office of Program Administration,
telephone 512–536–5970, or via email at
Elizabeth.Hilton@dot.gov. For legal
questions, please contact Robert Black,
Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone
202–366–1359, or via email at
Robert.Black@dot.gov, Federal Highway
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Business hours for the FHWA are from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document, the request for
comments notice, and all comments
received may be viewed online through
the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
https://www.regulations.gov. The docket
identification number is FHWA–2015–
0020. The Web site is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year. Anyone
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
can search the electronic form of all
comments in any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, or labor union). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477), or you may visit https://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Request for Comments
On October 7, 2015, FHWA published
a Notice with Request for Comments (80
FR 60732) soliciting public comments
on proposed revisions to the 13
controlling criteria for the design and
the documentation that is expected to
support requests for design exceptions.
When used in this notice, the term
‘‘design exception’’ refers to
documentation prepared for projects on
the NHS when a controlling criterion is
not met, and that must be approved in
accordance with 23 CFR 625.3(f), by
FHWA or on behalf of FHWA if a State
Transportation Agency (STA) has
assumed this responsibility through a
Stewardship and Oversight agreement.
Background
As codified in 23 CFR 625.3 and
625.4, the geometric design standards
for projects on the NHS are A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets (2011) and A Policy on Design
Standards Interstate System (2005),
published by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). As codified in 23
CFR 625.3(f), exceptions may be
approved on a project basis for designs
that do not conform to the minimum or
limiting criteria set forth in the
standards, policies, and standard
specifications adopted in 23 CFR 625. In
1985, FHWA designated 13 criteria as
controlling criteria, requiring design
exceptions when any of these 13 criteria
were not met.
The FHWA proposed to eliminate 3
criteria, rename others, and focus the
application of most criteria on highspeed roadways (i.e., design speed ≥50
mph). The 10 controlling criteria
proposed for design of projects on the
NHS were: Design Speed, Lane Width,
Shoulder Width, Horizontal Curve
Radius, Superelevation, Stopping Sight
Distance, Maximum Grade, Cross Slope,
Vertical Clearance, and Design Loading
Structural Capacity. The FHWA
proposed that all 10 controlling criteria
would apply to high-speed roadways on
the NHS, and that only two, Design
Speed and Design Loading Structural
Capacity, would apply on low-speed
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27187
roadways (i.e., design speed <50 mph)
on the NHS.
Purpose of the Notice
The purpose of this notice is to
publish final designation of the
controlling criteria for design of projects
on the NHS and how they will be
applied in various contexts, and
describe the design documentation
needed to support requests for design
exceptions. While all of the criteria
contained in the adopted standards are
important design considerations, they
do not all affect the safety and
operations of a roadway to the same
degree, and therefore do not require the
same level of administrative control.
The FHWA encourages agencies to
document design decisions to
demonstrate compliance with accepted
engineering principles and the reasons
for the decision. Deviations from criteria
contained in the standards for projects
on the NHS which are not considered to
be controlling criteria should be
documented by the STA in accordance
with State laws, regulations, directives,
and safety standards. States can
determine their own level of
documentation depending on State laws
and risk management practices.
Designation of Controlling Criteria
Based on the comments received in
response to FHWA’s proposal,
combined with FHWA’s own experience
and the findings of National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 783 ‘‘Evaluation of the 13
Controlling Criteria for Geometric
Design’’ (2014), the 10 controlling
criteria for design are:
• Design Speed;
• Lane Width;
• Shoulder Width;
• Horizontal Curve Radius;
• Superelevation Rate;
• Stopping Sight Distance (SSD);
• Maximum Grade;
• Cross Slope;
• Vertical Clearance; and
• Design Loading Structural Capacity.
All 10 controlling criteria apply to
high-speed (i.e., Interstate highways,
other freeways, and roadways with
design speed ≥50 mph) roadways on the
NHS. The SSD applies to horizontal
alignments and vertical alignments
except for sag vertical curves. On lowspeed roadways (i.e., non-freeways with
design speed <50 mph) on the NHS,
only the following two controlling
criteria apply:
• Design Loading Structural Capacity;
and
• Design Speed.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
27188
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Notices
Design Documentation
Design exceptions, subject to approval
by FHWA, or on behalf of FHWA if an
STA has assumed the responsibility
through a Stewardship and Oversight
agreement, are required for projects on
the NHS only when the controlling
criteria are not met. The FHWA expects
documentation of design exceptions to
describe all of the following:
• Specific design criteria that will not
be met.
• Existing roadway characteristics.
• Alternatives considered.
• Comparison of the safety and
operational performance of the roadway
and other impacts such as right-of-way,
community, environmental, cost, and
usability by all modes of transportation.
• Proposed mitigation measures.
• Compatibility with adjacent
sections of roadway.
Design Speed and Design Loading
Structural Capacity are fundamental
criteria in the design of a project.
Exceptions to these criteria should be
extremely rare and FHWA expects the
documentation to provide the following
additional information:
• Design Speed exceptions:
Æ Length of section with reduced
design speed compared to overall length
of project.
Æ Measures used in transitions to
adjacent sections with higher or lower
design or operating speeds.
• Design Loading Structural Capacity
exceptions:
Æ Verification of safe load-carrying
capacity (load rating) for all State
unrestricted legal loads or routine
permit loads and, in the case of bridges
and tunnels on the Interstate, all Federal
legal loads.
The FHWA encourages agencies to
document all design decisions to
demonstrate compliance with accepted
engineering principles and the reasons
for the decision. The approval of
deviations from applicable design
criteria are to be handled as follows:
1. The project is located on a NHS
roadway and controlling criteria are not
met: In accordance with 23 CFR
625.3(f), design exceptions are required
and FHWA is the approving authority,
or exceptions may be approved on
behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed
the responsibility through a
Stewardship and Oversight agreement,
with documentation as stated above.
2. The project is located on a NHS
roadway and non-controlling criteria are
not met: STA is the approving authority
for design deviations,1 in accordance
with State laws, regulations, directives,
and safety standards. States can
determine their own level of
documentation depending on State laws
and risk management practices.
3. The project is located on a nonNHS roadway and the State design
criteria are not met on a Federal-aid
project: STA is the approving authority
for design deviations, in accordance
with State laws, regulations, directives,
and safety standards. States can
determine their own level of
documentation depending on their State
laws and risk management practices.
1 The term ‘‘deviation,’’ when used in this
document, refers to any departure from design
criteria that does not require FHWA approval
because either the criteria is non-controlling or the
facility is not on the NHS. States often refer to these
instances as design deviations or variances.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Analysis of Comments
The FHWA received comments from
2,327 individuals and organizations on
the proposed changes to the controlling
criteria. Of these, 2,167 were individual
form-letter comments delivered to the
docket by Transportation for America.
Of the remaining, 87 were from
individuals, 23 from STAs, 22 from
other public entities, 18 from private
organizations, 5 from industry
associations, 4 from private firms, and 1
from an elected official. The comments
are summarized below.
General Comments
Many commenters referred to the
proposed changes as a rulemaking. The
controlling criteria are not established
by Federal regulation, instead they are
a matter of policy. The proposed
changes are not a rulemaking as they
will not modify the CFR and will not
impose binding requirements that have
the force and effect of law. The proposal
was published as a notice in the Federal
Register as a way to invite public
comment on the proposed policy
changes.
Controlling Criteria
All but 7 of the 2,327 commenters
support revisions to the controlling
criteria. Some supporters suggested
changes which were considered by
FHWA, as shown below.
1. Over 2,100 commenters asked
FHWA to replace the term ‘‘design
speed’’ with ‘‘target speed’’ for lowspeed NHS roadways so that roadway
design elements could be selected to
meet community needs and provide
safety for all modes of transportation.
Response: No changes were made.
The proposed changes, combined with
recent clarification by FHWA about
design speeds and posted speeds
(available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
design/standards/151007.cfm), allow
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
agencies the flexibility to design based
on target speed while remaining
consistent with the terminology used in
the adopted AASHTO standards. The
FHWA forwarded this comment to the
AASHTO Technical Committee on
Geometric Design for its consideration.
2. The National Association of City
Transportation Officials asked FHWA to
clarify that there is no minimum design
speed.
Response: No changes were made.
Minimum design speeds are included in
the adopted standards for the NHS and
design exceptions are required if a lower
design speed is selected. The FHWA
forwarded this comment to the
AASHTO Technical Committee on
Geometric Design for its consideration.
3. Three STAs recommended
retaining vertical clearance as a
controlling criterion on low-speed
roadways to ensure that insufficient
vertical clearance on a minor roadway
would not result in damage to an
overpassing high-speed roadway, such
as an Interstate highway or other
freeway.
Response: No changes were made.
The FHWA agrees that vertical
clearance is an important criterion and
that insufficient clearance on one
roadway may negatively impact the
overpassing roadway. However, States
are already managing the scenario
described if the low-speed roadway is
not on the NHS. Under this revised
policy, States would continue to manage
the risks associated with insufficient
vertical clearance for all low-speed
roadways (non-freeway), including
those on the NHS.
4. The Oregon DOT and a few
individuals thought that 50 mph was
too high for the threshold between highand low-speed roadways, citing
concerns about urban expressways and
that freight vehicles need wider lanes.
Response: The speed threshold
remains unchanged. The intent was to
capture all freeways in the high-speed
category. For clarification, FHWA
revised the definition of high-speed
roadway for the purposes of this policy
to include all Interstate highways, other
freeways, and roadways with design
speed greater than or equal to 50 mph.
5. The Wisconsin DOT recommended
using a posted speed of 40 mph to
define the threshold, stating that a
design speed of 50 mph is too high
given the likelihood of pedestrian
fatalities at that speed.
Response: No changes were made.
The proposed threshold was chosen for
consistency with AASHTO policy
documents adopted through regulation
at 23 CFR 625.4. The policy allows
maximum design flexibility for roads
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Notices
with a design speed less than 50 mph
which can be applied in ways that
improve pedestrian safety.
6. The Indiana DOT asked FHWA to
clarify that the superelevation criterion
is for rate only, and that transition
length and distribution are not subject
to a design exception.
Response: The FHWA concurs and
clarified the term in the controlling
criteria list.
7. The Indiana DOT asked FHWA to
clarify the application of SSD to vertical
and horizontal curves.
Response: Clarification was added.
The SSD applies to a variety of
situations and is well described in A
Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (2011). As noted
in NCHRP Report 783, SSD has little
impact on the safety and operations at
sag vertical curves under daytime
conditions when the driver can see
beyond the sag vertical curve, or at
night, when vehicle taillights and
headlights make another vehicle on the
road ahead visible in or beyond a sag
vertical curve. Therefore, the
application of SSD at sag vertical curves
is excluded from the controlling
criterion.
8. The Minnesota DOT suggested
eliminating design speed as a
controlling criterion on low-speed
roadways.
Response: No changes were made.
Design speed must be retained because
it is a fundamental criterion in the
design of the project and because it sets
the threshold for application of the
controlling criteria. If, for example,
design speed was not a controlling
criterion for low-speed roadways,
practitioners could simply select a
lower design speed to avoid the
controlling criteria requirements for
high-speed roadways.
9. The Georgia DOT and two others
commented that lateral offset to
obstruction should be retained as a
controlling criterion.
Response: No changes were made.
Lateral offset is most relevant to urban
and suburban roadways to ensure that
mirrors or other appurtenances of heavy
vehicles do not strike roadway objects
and passengers in parked cars are able
to open their doors. While these are
important considerations, they do not
rise to the same level of effect as other
controlling criteria proposed to be
retained and do not require the same
level of administrative control.
10. The Wisconsin DOT
recommended retaining lane width,
superelevation, stopping sight distance,
and cross slope as controlling criteria
for low-speed roadways, and adding a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
new controlling criterion for critical
length of grade.
Response: No changes were made.
The FHWA finds that removing these
controlling criteria from application in
low-speed environments is supported
by research and provides additional
flexibility to better accommodate all
modes of transportation. No new
controlling criteria are proposed at this
time.
11. The Wisconsin DOT commented
that bridge width is not redundant if
lane and shoulder widths are dropped
from the controlling criteria list in the
low-speed environment, which may
result in choke points that are expensive
to correct. They also commented that
vertical and horizontal clearances can
influence structural ratings; that
stopping sight distances at intersections
can be critical; and that the combination
of flat grades and cross slopes is
problematic.
Response: No changes were made.
While these criteria are important, the
risk of deviations can be handled by
STAs in accordance with their risk
management practices.
12. The Wisconsin DOT asked why
clear zone was not included in the
updated controlling criteria.
Response: No changes were made.
The Roadside Design Guide was not
adopted as a standard under 23 CFR
625. Instead it serves as guidance with
regard to roadside safety. Therefore,
adoption of values in the Roadside
Design Guide as controlling criteria
would not be appropriate.
13. A few commenters asked FHWA
to adopt additional controlling criteria
to require the provision of bicycle and/
or pedestrian facilities on roadways.
Response: No changes were made.
Such a policy would require a
regulatory change which is beyond the
scope of this controlling criteria policy.
Several commenters supporting
changes to the 1985 policy requested
clarifying guidance in the final notice,
as follows:
1. Clarify requirements for non-NHS
Federal-aid projects.
Response: This policy change does
not modify existing regulations. Per 23
CFR 625.3(a)(2), ‘‘Federal-aid projects
not on the NHS are to be designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained
in accordance with State laws,
regulations, directives, safety standards,
design standards, and construction
standards.’’ The FHWA reiterated in this
notice that the controlling criteria apply
only to the NHS.
2. Limit application on the NHS to
new construction and reconstruction
projects, and/or clarify that the
proposed modifications will not reduce
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27189
current State flexibility regarding
projects that are not new construction or
reconstruction.
Response: This policy change does
not modify existing regulations. It is not
limited to new construction and
reconstruction projects on the NHS.
Title 23 CFR 625.4(a)(3) states that
‘‘resurfacing, restoration, and
rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS
highways other than freeways’’ may
utilize the design criteria established by
the State and approved by FHWA. The
regulations do not allow the adoption of
RRR criteria for NHS freeways. The
FHWA Division Administrator is
allowed to determine the applicability
of the roadway geometric design
standards to traffic engineering, safety,
and preventive maintenance projects
which include very minor or no
roadway work under 23 CFR 625.3(e).
3. One commenter asked FHWA to
clarify that States can be more
restrictive than Federal guidance
proposed here, while other commenters
asked FHWA to encourage State DOTs
to apply the same logic to non-NHS
facilities.
Response: States may adopt policies
that are more restrictive than the revised
FHWA policy published here. The
FHWA encourages agencies to work
together with stakeholders to develop
context sensitive solutions that enhance
communities and provide multiple
transportation options to connect people
to work, school, and other critical
destinations. The FHWA notes that the
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act of 2015 includes new
provisions encouraging design
flexibility. The FHWA also issued a
memorandum in 2013 expressing
support for taking a flexible approach to
bicycle and pedestrian facility design.
The memorandum is available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_
flexibility.cfm.
4. A few commenters expressed
concern that FHWA is abandoning
safety on low speed roadways, or that
some designers will view noncontrolling criteria as less important.
Response: The FHWA developed this
proposal, based on the findings in
NCHRP Report 783 and FHWA’s
experience, to give agencies the
flexibility to balance the safety and
operations of all modes of
transportation, while reducing
administrative requirements where they
do not clearly result in improved safety
and operations. The FHWA encourages
agencies to document all design
decisions to demonstrate compliance
with accepted engineering principles
and the reasons for the decision.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
27190
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Notices
Deviations from criteria contained in the
standards for projects on the NHS which
are not considered to be controlling
criteria should be documented by the
STA in accordance with State laws,
regulations, directives, and safety
standards. States can determine their
own level of documentation depending
on State laws and risk management
practices. Agencies are responsible for
the training and development of their
employees.
5. Clarify that design exceptions are
not required for non-controlling criteria.
Response: Clarifying language was
added to the Design Documentation
section that stated design exceptions are
not required for non-controlling criteria.
6. For low-speed roadways, clarify
that elements dependent on design
speed that are substandard do not
require a design exception. For example,
design speed is 40 mph (and does not
require a design exception), but the
minimum curve radius provided meets
35 mph (no design exception is
required).
Response: For non-freeways, the
controlling criteria categories are based
on design speed, which puts the project
in one of two groups: High-speed or
low-speed. Within each category, design
exceptions are only required when the
controlling criteria are not met. In the
example provided, a non-freeway with a
40 mph design speed in accordance
with the AASHTO criteria would be
classified as low-speed. Design
exceptions would only be required if the
design speed or design loading
structural capacity criteria were not met.
No changes were made to the text of the
policy.
7. The Wisconsin DOT asked what
will be allowed for the National
Network (Federally designated long
truck routes per 23 CFR 658) if lane and
shoulder widths are not important for
safety and operations.
Response: All of the criteria contained
in the adopted standards are important
design considerations. They do not all
affect the safety and operations of a
roadway to the same degree, and
therefore should not require the same
level of administrative control. Changes
to the controlling criteria policy do not
modify the regulations contained in 23
CFR 658.
8. The Wisconsin DOT asked what
consideration was given to oversize and
overweight vehicles.
Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of
the A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, the designer
should consider the largest design
vehicle that is likely to use that facility
with considerable frequency or a design
vehicle with special characteristics
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
appropriate to a particular location in
determining the design of such critical
features as radii at intersections and
radii of turning roadways. Designers are
responsible for proper consideration of
oversize and overweight vehicles and all
other aspects of the project context.
9. The Southern Environmental Law
Center asked FHWA to clarify whether
rural roads with a design speed of less
than 50 mph remain subject to the 10
remaining design criteria.
Response: No changes were made.
The application of the controlling
criteria is the same regardless of urban
or rural designation.
Seven private citizens oppose changes
to the controlling criteria policy. Five of
the seven who oppose the changes
believe the proposed flexibility will
divert scarce Federal gasoline and road
taxes to non-highway purposes.
No changes were made as a result of
these comments. The design standards
for the NHS and design exception
process apply regardless of project
funding. Revising the controlling
criteria gives communities the ability to
develop a transportation system that
best serves their needs, but does not
change existing laws or regulations
pertaining to project expenses eligible
for Federal reimbursement.
Several comments were received that
do not pertain directly to the controlling
criteria policy. The Southern
Environmental Law Center recommends
changes to the design speeds shown in
the AASHTO Green Book to reflect a
range instead of a single minimum
number, as currently shown for three of
the categories (rural freeway, urban
freeway, and urban collector). The
criterion for urban collectors should
vary according to the different types of
terrain. Likewise, the low end of the
design speed range for urban collectors
in mountainous terrain should be the
same 20 mph minimum used for
collectors in rural mountainous terrain.
Finally, the definition of the term
‘‘urban’’ should be revised to include
areas of low density sprawl that now
surround most cities.
This comment is outside the scope of
this notice. The FHWA forwarded this
comment to the AASHTO Technical
Committee on Geometric Design for its
consideration.
Comments pertaining to the need for
bicycle and pedestrian accommodation
on bridges; appraisal ratings contained
in the National Bridge Inspection
Standards; the definition of pavement
reconstruction; design loading for
military vehicles; and the methods for
determining posted speeds were also
received.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
These comments are outside the scope
of this notice but were forwarded to the
appropriate program office within
FHWA for consideration.
Design Exception Documentation
Sixteen commenters provided
comments on the proposed
documentation expected in support of
requests for design exceptions. Fourteen
STAs, AASHTO, and the Chicago DOT
all commented that the level of
documentation proposed for design
exceptions would be burdensome and
would result in less flexibility than
currently exists for roadways with a
design speed greater than 50 mph. They
also believe that such a requirement is
at odds with FHWA’s current emphasis
on Performance Based Practical Design
(PBPD). Instead of providing an
inclusive list of items to be addressed in
design documentation, they recommend
that any list be more suggestive in
nature. Agencies asked FHWA to
remove the requirement for quantitative
operational and safety analysis, and
expressed concern that references to the
environment and community would add
too much specificity.
The PBPD is a design-up approach to
address the purpose and need of a
project and emphasizes the need to
document design decisions made under
this approach. Therefore, FHWA sees no
inconsistency between the design
documentation proposed here and the
PBPD approach. In response to the
concerns expressed, FHWA modified
the language regarding the safety and
operational analysis such that it does
not require a quantitative analysis in all
cases. The level of analysis should be
commensurate with the complexity of
the project. The FHWA notes however,
that the FAST Act adds the Highway
Safety Manual (HSM) to the list of
publications FHWA shall consider
when developing design criteria for the
NHS. The FHWA strongly encourages
agencies to utilize the HSM procedures
to the maximum extent applicable. The
FHWA retained references to the
environment and community because
design exceptions to address these
concerns are not uncommon, and
therefore need to be a part of any
documentation.
Conclusion
The overwhelming support for
changes to the controlling criteria
indicate that the changes will support
agency and community efforts to
develop transportation projects that
support community goals and are
appropriate to the project context. The
provisions included here for design
documentation will result in more
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Notices
consistent evaluation of exceptions to
the adopted design standards when
controlling criteria are not met on NHS
highways.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109 and 315; 23 CFR
1.32 and 625; 49 CFR 1.85.
Issued on: April 22, 2016.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016–10299 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposals, Submissions,
and Approvals
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning
Employment Tax Adjustments.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before July 5, 2016 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions
should be directed to Sara Covington,
Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526,
1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington DC 20224, or through the
internet, at Sara.L.Covington@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Employment Tax Adjustments;
and Rules Relating to Additional
Medicare Tax.
OMB Number: 1545–2097.
Regulation Project Number: REG–
111583–07 [T.D. 9405 (final)] and REG–
130074–11.
Abstract: This document contains
final regulations relating to employment
tax adjustments and employment tax
refund claims. These regulations modify
the process for making interest-free
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
adjustments for both underpayments
and overpayments of Federal Insurance
Contributions Act (FICA) and Railroad
Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) taxes and
federal income tax withholding (ITW)
under sections 6205(a) and 6413(a),
respectively, of the Internal Revenue
Code (Code).
Current Actions: There is a no in the
paperwork burden previously approved
by OMB. This form is being submitted
for renewal purposes only.
Type of Review: Extension of a
previously approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses and other
for-profit organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
3,400,000.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 10
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 16,900,000.
The following paragraph applies to all
of the collections of information covered
by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless the collection of information
displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection
of information must be retained as long
as their contents may become material
in the administration of any internal
revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential,
as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Request for Comments: Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in the
request for OMB approval. All
comments will become a matter of
public record.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology;
and (e) estimates of capital or start-up
costs and costs of operation,
maintenance, and purchase of services
to provide information.
Approved: April 28, 2016.
Sara Covington,
IRS Tax Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2016–10570 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27191
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
SUMMARY:
Written comments should be
received on or before July 5, 2016 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or
at Elaine.H.Christophe@irs.gov.
Please send separate comments for
each specific information collection
listed below. You must reference the
information collection’s title, form
number, reporting or record-keeping
requirement number, and OMB number
(if any) in your comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
obtain additional information, or copies
of the information collection and
instructions, or copies of any comments
received, contact Elaine Christophe, at
Internal Revenue Service, Room 6513,
1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20224, or through the
internet, at Elaine.H.Christophe@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Department of the Treasury and
the Internal Revenue Service, as part of
their continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
invite the general public and other
Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
proposed or continuing information
collections listed below in this notice,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in our
request for Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant
information collection. All comments
will become a matter of public record.
Please do not include any confidential
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27187-27191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10299]
[[Page 27187]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2015-0020]
Revision of Thirteen Controlling Criteria for Design and
Documentation of Design Exceptions
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The geometric design standards for projects on the National
Highway System (NHS) are incorporated by reference in FHWA regulations
in 23 CFR 625 and apply regardless of funding source. These design
standards are comprehensive in nature, covering a multitude of design
characteristics, while allowing flexibility in application. Exceptions
may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not conform to
the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards, policies,
and standard specifications.
The FHWA is updating its 1985 policy regarding controlling criteria
for design, applicable to projects on the NHS, to reduce the number of
controlling criteria from 13 to 10, and to apply only 2 of those
criteria to low speed roadways. The FHWA is also issuing guidance to
clarify when design exceptions are needed and the documentation that is
expected to support such requests. The FHWA's guidance memorandum,
which is available in the docket (FHWA-2015-0020), transmits this
policy to FHWA field offices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions, contact Elizabeth
Hilton, Geometric Design Engineer, FHWA Office of Program
Administration, telephone 512-536-5970, or via email at
Elizabeth.Hilton@dot.gov. For legal questions, please contact Robert
Black, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-1359, or via
email at Robert.Black@dot.gov, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Business hours for the FHWA
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, the request for comments notice, and all comments
received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal
at: https://www.regulations.gov. The docket identification number is
FHWA-2015-0020. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments in any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477), or you may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Request for Comments
On October 7, 2015, FHWA published a Notice with Request for
Comments (80 FR 60732) soliciting public comments on proposed revisions
to the 13 controlling criteria for the design and the documentation
that is expected to support requests for design exceptions. When used
in this notice, the term ``design exception'' refers to documentation
prepared for projects on the NHS when a controlling criterion is not
met, and that must be approved in accordance with 23 CFR 625.3(f), by
FHWA or on behalf of FHWA if a State Transportation Agency (STA) has
assumed this responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight
agreement.
Background
As codified in 23 CFR 625.3 and 625.4, the geometric design
standards for projects on the NHS are A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (2011) and A Policy on Design Standards Interstate
System (2005), published by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). As codified in 23 CFR 625.3(f),
exceptions may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not
conform to the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards,
policies, and standard specifications adopted in 23 CFR 625. In 1985,
FHWA designated 13 criteria as controlling criteria, requiring design
exceptions when any of these 13 criteria were not met.
The FHWA proposed to eliminate 3 criteria, rename others, and focus
the application of most criteria on high-speed roadways (i.e., design
speed >=50 mph). The 10 controlling criteria proposed for design of
projects on the NHS were: Design Speed, Lane Width, Shoulder Width,
Horizontal Curve Radius, Superelevation, Stopping Sight Distance,
Maximum Grade, Cross Slope, Vertical Clearance, and Design Loading
Structural Capacity. The FHWA proposed that all 10 controlling criteria
would apply to high-speed roadways on the NHS, and that only two,
Design Speed and Design Loading Structural Capacity, would apply on
low-speed roadways (i.e., design speed <50 mph) on the NHS.
Purpose of the Notice
The purpose of this notice is to publish final designation of the
controlling criteria for design of projects on the NHS and how they
will be applied in various contexts, and describe the design
documentation needed to support requests for design exceptions. While
all of the criteria contained in the adopted standards are important
design considerations, they do not all affect the safety and operations
of a roadway to the same degree, and therefore do not require the same
level of administrative control. The FHWA encourages agencies to
document design decisions to demonstrate compliance with accepted
engineering principles and the reasons for the decision. Deviations
from criteria contained in the standards for projects on the NHS which
are not considered to be controlling criteria should be documented by
the STA in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, and
safety standards. States can determine their own level of documentation
depending on State laws and risk management practices.
Designation of Controlling Criteria
Based on the comments received in response to FHWA's proposal,
combined with FHWA's own experience and the findings of National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 783 ``Evaluation of
the 13 Controlling Criteria for Geometric Design'' (2014), the 10
controlling criteria for design are:
Design Speed;
Lane Width;
Shoulder Width;
Horizontal Curve Radius;
Superelevation Rate;
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD);
Maximum Grade;
Cross Slope;
Vertical Clearance; and
Design Loading Structural Capacity.
All 10 controlling criteria apply to high-speed (i.e., Interstate
highways, other freeways, and roadways with design speed >=50 mph)
roadways on the NHS. The SSD applies to horizontal alignments and
vertical alignments except for sag vertical curves. On low-speed
roadways (i.e., non-freeways with design speed <50 mph) on the NHS,
only the following two controlling criteria apply:
Design Loading Structural Capacity; and
Design Speed.
[[Page 27188]]
Design Documentation
Design exceptions, subject to approval by FHWA, or on behalf of
FHWA if an STA has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and
Oversight agreement, are required for projects on the NHS only when the
controlling criteria are not met. The FHWA expects documentation of
design exceptions to describe all of the following:
Specific design criteria that will not be met.
Existing roadway characteristics.
Alternatives considered.
Comparison of the safety and operational performance of
the roadway and other impacts such as right-of-way, community,
environmental, cost, and usability by all modes of transportation.
Proposed mitigation measures.
Compatibility with adjacent sections of roadway.
Design Speed and Design Loading Structural Capacity are fundamental
criteria in the design of a project. Exceptions to these criteria
should be extremely rare and FHWA expects the documentation to provide
the following additional information:
Design Speed exceptions:
[cir] Length of section with reduced design speed compared to
overall length of project.
[cir] Measures used in transitions to adjacent sections with higher
or lower design or operating speeds.
Design Loading Structural Capacity exceptions:
[cir] Verification of safe load-carrying capacity (load rating) for
all State unrestricted legal loads or routine permit loads and, in the
case of bridges and tunnels on the Interstate, all Federal legal loads.
The FHWA encourages agencies to document all design decisions to
demonstrate compliance with accepted engineering principles and the
reasons for the decision. The approval of deviations from applicable
design criteria are to be handled as follows:
1. The project is located on a NHS roadway and controlling criteria
are not met: In accordance with 23 CFR 625.3(f), design exceptions are
required and FHWA is the approving authority, or exceptions may be
approved on behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed the responsibility
through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement, with documentation as
stated above.
2. The project is located on a NHS roadway and non-controlling
criteria are not met: STA is the approving authority for design
deviations,\1\ in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives,
and safety standards. States can determine their own level of
documentation depending on State laws and risk management practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``deviation,'' when used in this document, refers
to any departure from design criteria that does not require FHWA
approval because either the criteria is non-controlling or the
facility is not on the NHS. States often refer to these instances as
design deviations or variances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The project is located on a non-NHS roadway and the State design
criteria are not met on a Federal-aid project: STA is the approving
authority for design deviations, in accordance with State laws,
regulations, directives, and safety standards. States can determine
their own level of documentation depending on their State laws and risk
management practices.
Analysis of Comments
The FHWA received comments from 2,327 individuals and organizations
on the proposed changes to the controlling criteria. Of these, 2,167
were individual form-letter comments delivered to the docket by
Transportation for America. Of the remaining, 87 were from individuals,
23 from STAs, 22 from other public entities, 18 from private
organizations, 5 from industry associations, 4 from private firms, and
1 from an elected official. The comments are summarized below.
General Comments
Many commenters referred to the proposed changes as a rulemaking.
The controlling criteria are not established by Federal regulation,
instead they are a matter of policy. The proposed changes are not a
rulemaking as they will not modify the CFR and will not impose binding
requirements that have the force and effect of law. The proposal was
published as a notice in the Federal Register as a way to invite public
comment on the proposed policy changes.
Controlling Criteria
All but 7 of the 2,327 commenters support revisions to the
controlling criteria. Some supporters suggested changes which were
considered by FHWA, as shown below.
1. Over 2,100 commenters asked FHWA to replace the term ``design
speed'' with ``target speed'' for low-speed NHS roadways so that
roadway design elements could be selected to meet community needs and
provide safety for all modes of transportation.
Response: No changes were made. The proposed changes, combined with
recent clarification by FHWA about design speeds and posted speeds
(available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/151007.cfm),
allow agencies the flexibility to design based on target speed while
remaining consistent with the terminology used in the adopted AASHTO
standards. The FHWA forwarded this comment to the AASHTO Technical
Committee on Geometric Design for its consideration.
2. The National Association of City Transportation Officials asked
FHWA to clarify that there is no minimum design speed.
Response: No changes were made. Minimum design speeds are included
in the adopted standards for the NHS and design exceptions are required
if a lower design speed is selected. The FHWA forwarded this comment to
the AASHTO Technical Committee on Geometric Design for its
consideration.
3. Three STAs recommended retaining vertical clearance as a
controlling criterion on low-speed roadways to ensure that insufficient
vertical clearance on a minor roadway would not result in damage to an
overpassing high-speed roadway, such as an Interstate highway or other
freeway.
Response: No changes were made. The FHWA agrees that vertical
clearance is an important criterion and that insufficient clearance on
one roadway may negatively impact the overpassing roadway. However,
States are already managing the scenario described if the low-speed
roadway is not on the NHS. Under this revised policy, States would
continue to manage the risks associated with insufficient vertical
clearance for all low-speed roadways (non-freeway), including those on
the NHS.
4. The Oregon DOT and a few individuals thought that 50 mph was too
high for the threshold between high- and low-speed roadways, citing
concerns about urban expressways and that freight vehicles need wider
lanes.
Response: The speed threshold remains unchanged. The intent was to
capture all freeways in the high-speed category. For clarification,
FHWA revised the definition of high-speed roadway for the purposes of
this policy to include all Interstate highways, other freeways, and
roadways with design speed greater than or equal to 50 mph.
5. The Wisconsin DOT recommended using a posted speed of 40 mph to
define the threshold, stating that a design speed of 50 mph is too high
given the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities at that speed.
Response: No changes were made. The proposed threshold was chosen
for consistency with AASHTO policy documents adopted through regulation
at 23 CFR 625.4. The policy allows maximum design flexibility for roads
[[Page 27189]]
with a design speed less than 50 mph which can be applied in ways that
improve pedestrian safety.
6. The Indiana DOT asked FHWA to clarify that the superelevation
criterion is for rate only, and that transition length and distribution
are not subject to a design exception.
Response: The FHWA concurs and clarified the term in the
controlling criteria list.
7. The Indiana DOT asked FHWA to clarify the application of SSD to
vertical and horizontal curves.
Response: Clarification was added. The SSD applies to a variety of
situations and is well described in A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (2011). As noted in NCHRP Report 783, SSD has
little impact on the safety and operations at sag vertical curves under
daytime conditions when the driver can see beyond the sag vertical
curve, or at night, when vehicle taillights and headlights make another
vehicle on the road ahead visible in or beyond a sag vertical curve.
Therefore, the application of SSD at sag vertical curves is excluded
from the controlling criterion.
8. The Minnesota DOT suggested eliminating design speed as a
controlling criterion on low-speed roadways.
Response: No changes were made. Design speed must be retained
because it is a fundamental criterion in the design of the project and
because it sets the threshold for application of the controlling
criteria. If, for example, design speed was not a controlling criterion
for low-speed roadways, practitioners could simply select a lower
design speed to avoid the controlling criteria requirements for high-
speed roadways.
9. The Georgia DOT and two others commented that lateral offset to
obstruction should be retained as a controlling criterion.
Response: No changes were made. Lateral offset is most relevant to
urban and suburban roadways to ensure that mirrors or other
appurtenances of heavy vehicles do not strike roadway objects and
passengers in parked cars are able to open their doors. While these are
important considerations, they do not rise to the same level of effect
as other controlling criteria proposed to be retained and do not
require the same level of administrative control.
10. The Wisconsin DOT recommended retaining lane width,
superelevation, stopping sight distance, and cross slope as controlling
criteria for low-speed roadways, and adding a new controlling criterion
for critical length of grade.
Response: No changes were made. The FHWA finds that removing these
controlling criteria from application in low-speed environments is
supported by research and provides additional flexibility to better
accommodate all modes of transportation. No new controlling criteria
are proposed at this time.
11. The Wisconsin DOT commented that bridge width is not redundant
if lane and shoulder widths are dropped from the controlling criteria
list in the low-speed environment, which may result in choke points
that are expensive to correct. They also commented that vertical and
horizontal clearances can influence structural ratings; that stopping
sight distances at intersections can be critical; and that the
combination of flat grades and cross slopes is problematic.
Response: No changes were made. While these criteria are important,
the risk of deviations can be handled by STAs in accordance with their
risk management practices.
12. The Wisconsin DOT asked why clear zone was not included in the
updated controlling criteria.
Response: No changes were made. The Roadside Design Guide was not
adopted as a standard under 23 CFR 625. Instead it serves as guidance
with regard to roadside safety. Therefore, adoption of values in the
Roadside Design Guide as controlling criteria would not be appropriate.
13. A few commenters asked FHWA to adopt additional controlling
criteria to require the provision of bicycle and/or pedestrian
facilities on roadways.
Response: No changes were made. Such a policy would require a
regulatory change which is beyond the scope of this controlling
criteria policy.
Several commenters supporting changes to the 1985 policy requested
clarifying guidance in the final notice, as follows:
1. Clarify requirements for non-NHS Federal-aid projects.
Response: This policy change does not modify existing regulations.
Per 23 CFR 625.3(a)(2), ``Federal-aid projects not on the NHS are to be
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
State laws, regulations, directives, safety standards, design
standards, and construction standards.'' The FHWA reiterated in this
notice that the controlling criteria apply only to the NHS.
2. Limit application on the NHS to new construction and
reconstruction projects, and/or clarify that the proposed modifications
will not reduce current State flexibility regarding projects that are
not new construction or reconstruction.
Response: This policy change does not modify existing regulations.
It is not limited to new construction and reconstruction projects on
the NHS. Title 23 CFR 625.4(a)(3) states that ``resurfacing,
restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS highways other
than freeways'' may utilize the design criteria established by the
State and approved by FHWA. The regulations do not allow the adoption
of RRR criteria for NHS freeways. The FHWA Division Administrator is
allowed to determine the applicability of the roadway geometric design
standards to traffic engineering, safety, and preventive maintenance
projects which include very minor or no roadway work under 23 CFR
625.3(e).
3. One commenter asked FHWA to clarify that States can be more
restrictive than Federal guidance proposed here, while other commenters
asked FHWA to encourage State DOTs to apply the same logic to non-NHS
facilities.
Response: States may adopt policies that are more restrictive than
the revised FHWA policy published here. The FHWA encourages agencies to
work together with stakeholders to develop context sensitive solutions
that enhance communities and provide multiple transportation options to
connect people to work, school, and other critical destinations. The
FHWA notes that the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
of 2015 includes new provisions encouraging design flexibility. The
FHWA also issued a memorandum in 2013 expressing support for taking a
flexible approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility design. The
memorandum is available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility.cfm.
4. A few commenters expressed concern that FHWA is abandoning
safety on low speed roadways, or that some designers will view non-
controlling criteria as less important.
Response: The FHWA developed this proposal, based on the findings
in NCHRP Report 783 and FHWA's experience, to give agencies the
flexibility to balance the safety and operations of all modes of
transportation, while reducing administrative requirements where they
do not clearly result in improved safety and operations. The FHWA
encourages agencies to document all design decisions to demonstrate
compliance with accepted engineering principles and the reasons for the
decision.
[[Page 27190]]
Deviations from criteria contained in the standards for projects on the
NHS which are not considered to be controlling criteria should be
documented by the STA in accordance with State laws, regulations,
directives, and safety standards. States can determine their own level
of documentation depending on State laws and risk management practices.
Agencies are responsible for the training and development of their
employees.
5. Clarify that design exceptions are not required for non-
controlling criteria.
Response: Clarifying language was added to the Design Documentation
section that stated design exceptions are not required for non-
controlling criteria.
6. For low-speed roadways, clarify that elements dependent on
design speed that are substandard do not require a design exception.
For example, design speed is 40 mph (and does not require a design
exception), but the minimum curve radius provided meets 35 mph (no
design exception is required).
Response: For non-freeways, the controlling criteria categories are
based on design speed, which puts the project in one of two groups:
High-speed or low-speed. Within each category, design exceptions are
only required when the controlling criteria are not met. In the example
provided, a non-freeway with a 40 mph design speed in accordance with
the AASHTO criteria would be classified as low-speed. Design exceptions
would only be required if the design speed or design loading structural
capacity criteria were not met. No changes were made to the text of the
policy.
7. The Wisconsin DOT asked what will be allowed for the National
Network (Federally designated long truck routes per 23 CFR 658) if lane
and shoulder widths are not important for safety and operations.
Response: All of the criteria contained in the adopted standards
are important design considerations. They do not all affect the safety
and operations of a roadway to the same degree, and therefore should
not require the same level of administrative control. Changes to the
controlling criteria policy do not modify the regulations contained in
23 CFR 658.
8. The Wisconsin DOT asked what consideration was given to oversize
and overweight vehicles.
Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of the A Policy on Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets, the designer should consider the largest
design vehicle that is likely to use that facility with considerable
frequency or a design vehicle with special characteristics appropriate
to a particular location in determining the design of such critical
features as radii at intersections and radii of turning roadways.
Designers are responsible for proper consideration of oversize and
overweight vehicles and all other aspects of the project context.
9. The Southern Environmental Law Center asked FHWA to clarify
whether rural roads with a design speed of less than 50 mph remain
subject to the 10 remaining design criteria.
Response: No changes were made. The application of the controlling
criteria is the same regardless of urban or rural designation.
Seven private citizens oppose changes to the controlling criteria
policy. Five of the seven who oppose the changes believe the proposed
flexibility will divert scarce Federal gasoline and road taxes to non-
highway purposes.
No changes were made as a result of these comments. The design
standards for the NHS and design exception process apply regardless of
project funding. Revising the controlling criteria gives communities
the ability to develop a transportation system that best serves their
needs, but does not change existing laws or regulations pertaining to
project expenses eligible for Federal reimbursement.
Several comments were received that do not pertain directly to the
controlling criteria policy. The Southern Environmental Law Center
recommends changes to the design speeds shown in the AASHTO Green Book
to reflect a range instead of a single minimum number, as currently
shown for three of the categories (rural freeway, urban freeway, and
urban collector). The criterion for urban collectors should vary
according to the different types of terrain. Likewise, the low end of
the design speed range for urban collectors in mountainous terrain
should be the same 20 mph minimum used for collectors in rural
mountainous terrain. Finally, the definition of the term ``urban''
should be revised to include areas of low density sprawl that now
surround most cities.
This comment is outside the scope of this notice. The FHWA
forwarded this comment to the AASHTO Technical Committee on Geometric
Design for its consideration.
Comments pertaining to the need for bicycle and pedestrian
accommodation on bridges; appraisal ratings contained in the National
Bridge Inspection Standards; the definition of pavement reconstruction;
design loading for military vehicles; and the methods for determining
posted speeds were also received.
These comments are outside the scope of this notice but were
forwarded to the appropriate program office within FHWA for
consideration.
Design Exception Documentation
Sixteen commenters provided comments on the proposed documentation
expected in support of requests for design exceptions. Fourteen STAs,
AASHTO, and the Chicago DOT all commented that the level of
documentation proposed for design exceptions would be burdensome and
would result in less flexibility than currently exists for roadways
with a design speed greater than 50 mph. They also believe that such a
requirement is at odds with FHWA's current emphasis on Performance
Based Practical Design (PBPD). Instead of providing an inclusive list
of items to be addressed in design documentation, they recommend that
any list be more suggestive in nature. Agencies asked FHWA to remove
the requirement for quantitative operational and safety analysis, and
expressed concern that references to the environment and community
would add too much specificity.
The PBPD is a design-up approach to address the purpose and need of
a project and emphasizes the need to document design decisions made
under this approach. Therefore, FHWA sees no inconsistency between the
design documentation proposed here and the PBPD approach. In response
to the concerns expressed, FHWA modified the language regarding the
safety and operational analysis such that it does not require a
quantitative analysis in all cases. The level of analysis should be
commensurate with the complexity of the project. The FHWA notes
however, that the FAST Act adds the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to the
list of publications FHWA shall consider when developing design
criteria for the NHS. The FHWA strongly encourages agencies to utilize
the HSM procedures to the maximum extent applicable. The FHWA retained
references to the environment and community because design exceptions
to address these concerns are not uncommon, and therefore need to be a
part of any documentation.
Conclusion
The overwhelming support for changes to the controlling criteria
indicate that the changes will support agency and community efforts to
develop transportation projects that support community goals and are
appropriate to the project context. The provisions included here for
design documentation will result in more
[[Page 27191]]
consistent evaluation of exceptions to the adopted design standards
when controlling criteria are not met on NHS highways.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109 and 315; 23 CFR 1.32 and 625; 49 CFR
1.85.
Issued on: April 22, 2016.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-10299 Filed 5-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P