Final Re-Designation of the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS), 78759-78762 [2022-27875]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78759-78762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27875]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. FHWA-2020-0010]


Final Re-Designation of the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS)

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

ACTION: Notice; response to comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the re-designated PHFS to meet the 
statutory requirements of the authorizing law. This notice presents a 
final, re-designated PHFS, provides summary analysis of input received 
for PHFS re-designation, FHWA responses to comments, the methodology 
applied, and changes made for the re-designation of the PHFS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be addressed to Birat 
Pandey, [email protected], 202-366-2842, Office of Freight 
Management and Operations (HOFM-1), Office of Operations, FHWA, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Congress established a new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) 
in 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 167 to improve the efficient movement 
of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) and support 
several goals. The law required the FHWA Administrator to strategically 
direct Federal resources and policies toward improved performance of 
the network. The NHFP provides formula funding apportioned annually to 
States, for use on the NHFN. The definition of the NHFN is established 
under 23 U.S.C. 167(c) and consists of four separate highway network 
components: the

[[Page 78760]]

PHFS; Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFC); Critical Urban Freight 
Corridors (CUFC); and those portions of the Interstate System that are 
not part of the PHFS. The initial designation of the PHFS was 
identified during the designation process for the previously designated 
Primary Freight Network (PFN) under section 23 U.S.C. 167(d), as in 
effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94).
    The FHWA Administrator is required to re-designate the PHFS every 5 
years. Each re-designation is limited to a maximum 3 percent increase 
in total mileage of the system per 23 U.S.C. 167(d)(2)(B). In re-
designating the PHFS, to the maximum extent practicable, the FHWA 
Administrator must use measurable data to assess the significance of 
goods movement, including consideration of points of origin, 
destinations, and linking components of the United States global and 
domestic supply chains. 23 U.S.C. 167(d)(2)(C). Per the statute, in re-
designating the PHFS, the Administrator shall provide an opportunity 
for State Freight Advisory Committees (SFAC), as applicable, to submit 
additional miles for consideration. 23 U.S.C. 167(d)(2)(D). In re-
designating the PHFS, the Administrator shall consider the factors 
outlined in 23 U.S.C. 167(d)(2)(E). Those factors include: changes in 
the origins and destinations of U.S. freight movement; changes in the 
percent of annual daily truck traffic on principal arterials; changes 
in the location of key facilities; land and water ports of entry; 
access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production 
areas; access to other freight intermodal facilities, including rail, 
air, water, and pipeline facilities; the total freight tonnage and 
value moved on highways; significant freight bottlenecks; the 
significance of goods movement on principal arterials, including 
consideration of global and domestic supply chains; critical emerging 
freight corridors and critical commerce corridors; and network 
connectivity.

PHFS and Use of NHFP Funds

    Congress established NHFP in 23 U.S.C. 167 to improve the efficient 
movement of freight on the NHFN and support several goals. Additional 
details on the NHFP are available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/nhfp.cfm. A State shall obligate funds 
apportioned to the State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(5) to improve the 
movement of freight on the NHFN pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 167. A State with 
PHFS mileage of less than 2 percent of the national total PHFS mileage 
(Low PHFS Mileage States) may obligate NHFP funds for projects on any 
component of the NHFN. A State with PHFS mileage greater than or equal 
to 2 percent of the national PHFS total (High PHFS Mileage State) may 
obligate its NHFP funds for projects on the PHFS, CRFCs, and CUFCs. 
States and in certain cases, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), 
are responsible for designating public roads for the CRFCs and CUFCs.

Final Re-Designation of the PHFS

    With this Notice, FHWA officially re-designates the PHFS. The re-
designated PHFS consists of 41,799 centerline miles, including 38,014 
centerline miles of Interstates and 3,785 centerline miles of non-
Interstate roads. Maps and tables exhibiting roads included in the PHFS 
re-designation will be available by State, here: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/ismt/nhfn_states_list.htm.

Analysis of the Comments for Re-Designation of the PHFS

    On August 26, 2021, at 86 FR 47705, FHWA published a Notice 
requesting information pertaining to re-designation of the PHFS and 
inviting comments for PHFS changes. This Notice explained statutorily 
required criteria for the PHFS re-designation, described available 
additional mileage for PHFS re-designation as required by the law, and 
presented results from FHWA preliminary analysis for the re-
designation. The Notice also outlined data submission criteria for 
identifying PHFS changes for FHWA consideration, three options 
considered by FHWA for allocation of available additional PHFS mileage, 
and FHWA's recommendation to include the technical corrections to the 
PHFS for the re-designation. The FHWA did not recommend removing 
previously designated routes from the PHFS unless they are no longer 
eligible for use by trucks. The FHWA requested comments for the PHFS 
re-designation from SFACs, as required by the statute, and from other 
interested parties. The Notice requested that a State submitting routes 
or feedback for consideration in the PHFS re-designation provide a 
letter of support from or on behalf of their SFAC. In addition, FHWA 
performed stakeholder outreach activities to disseminate information 
about the Notice to solicit public comments pertaining to re-
designation of the PHFS.
    In response to stakeholder requests for additional time for 
submission of comments to the docket, FHWA extended the public comment 
period from October 25, 2021, to December 15, 2021 (86 FR 58998). The 
FHWA received 30 responses from 25 States and from the District of 
Columbia, which included 134 discrete comments. Fifty-six percent of 
discrete comments came from State departments of transportation (State 
DOT) on behalf of SFACs.
    The FHWA received requests for a total of 1,767 miles of roadway 
changes for PHFS re-designation. Ninety three percent (1,641 miles) of 
the requested changes proposed additions to the PHFS and 7 percent of 
the mileage requests were for removal to the existing PHFS. About one 
third of the mileage changes for the re-designation were requested by 
High PHFS Mileage States and the remaining changes were requested from 
Low PHFS Mileage States.
    The FHWA outlined several examples for allocating additional PHFS 
mileage and the challenges for optimal allocation of available limited 
PHFS mileage. Respondents commented on the options, and also presented 
other preferred options such as proportional allocation of additional 
PHFS mileage to each State based on the existing PHFS mileage total for 
that State. While some respondents preferred equal allocation of 
additional PHFS mileage among all States or equal distribution only 
among High PHFS Mileage States, many of them requested new PHFS mileage 
well above equal allocation thresholds, without prioritizing their list 
of changes. When combined, the majority of the respondents preferred 
either a technical correction to the current PHFS or did not have a 
clear preference.

Comments for PHFS Re-Designation and FHWA Response

    The FHWA appreciates the comments relating to recommended statutory 
changes and request for additions, deletions, or modifications for PHFS 
re-designation. The majority of the comments included the specificity 
necessary to make modifications to the network and met the PHFS re-
designation criteria. The FHWA attempted to accommodate all requests 
that met PHFS re-designation criteria to the maximum extent 
practicable. In re-designating the PHFS, FHWA provided an opportunity 
for SFACs, as applicable, to submit additional miles for consideration. 
The sections below summarize FHWA's responses to the comments received 
and the methodology applied for final PHFS re-designation.

[[Page 78761]]

Role of SFACs for Re-Designation of the PHFS

    A number of respondents expressed that convening an SFAC and 
conducting coordination with committee members for the purpose of PHFS 
re-designation is burdensome and strains the limited capacity and 
resources available to States on this item of limited scope. 
Respondents requested changes to the current statutory requirement for 
SFACs input for re-designation of PHFS through future reauthorization 
or legislative changes for soliciting inputs for re-designation 
directly with State DOTs and MPOs. Respondents also noted that there is 
no statutory requirement for States to have a SFAC and Congress created 
them with an intent to advise States. Therefore, FHWA should not give 
greater weight to the input from SFACs than the views of the States 
itself for re-designation of the PHFS.
    In response, FHWA recognizes that establishment of SFACs is not 
required by the statute and that States have significant flexibility in 
creating SFACs. However, FHWA notes that SFACs provide a platform for 
collaboration between public and private stakeholders to identify 
critical freight infrastructure and that this input is beneficial for 
freight planning. The FHWA encouraged States to coordinate with SFACs 
for re-designation of the PHFS but did not give priority consideration 
to SFACs views over the views of the States for PHFS re-designation. 
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 167(d)(2)(D), in redesignating the PHFS, the 
Administrator is obligated to provide an opportunity for SFACs, as 
applicable, to submit additional miles for consideration.

Coverage Gaps for PHFS Re-Designation

    The FAST Act established 41,518 miles of PHFS and required re-
designation of the PHFS every 5 years, with a provision for a maximum 3 
percent mileage increase of the PHFS. Many comments expressed concern 
over the gaps in identification of critical freight network segments, 
due to limited mileage coverage of the PHFS and inadequate provision 
for PHFS mileage increase through re-designation. Respondents suggested 
several solutions for mitigating these mileage gaps, including changing 
the statutory provisions to allow for automatic designation of the 
entire Interstate System as PHFS, increasing the supplemental PHFS 
mileage that can be used during re-designation, or increasing the 
overall mileage of PHFS.
    The FHWA recognizes that, in some cases, statutory limits on PHFS 
mileage could prevent identification as PHFS of all roadways critical 
for freight movement in States. This mileage limitation for PHFS 
designation could be mitigated by States designating other freight-
critical routes as CRFCs and CUFCs. States, and in certain cases, MPOs, 
are responsible for designating public roads for the CRFCs and CUFCs; 
this designation authority can be expanded by removing prior 
designations after a project has been completed and reusing the mileage 
allowance on new segments, also known as designating on a rolling 
basis.
    Furthermore, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (enacted as 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) (Nov. 15, 
2021)) increased roadway mileage thresholds for the designation of 
CRFCs from 150 to 300 miles or 20 percent of the PHFS for that State, 
whichever is greater, and increased CUFCs mileage thresholds from 75 
miles to 150 miles or 10 percent of the PHFS for that State, whichever 
is greater. The BIL also created an additional category, ``Rural 
States,'' that establishes an even higher CRFCs mileage threshold for 
States with a population per square mile density that is less than the 
national average. The Rural States threshold for CRFCs is 600 miles. 
While it is possible that some States may still encounter a mileage 
challenge in identifying all of the freight-critical roadways in the 
State as PHFS, FHWA believes States have needed flexibility to 
prioritize roadways for designation to allow the State to program NHFP 
funds where needed.
     Include statutory provisions for automatic designation of 
the entire Interstate System as PHFS.
    The PHFS provides a system of roadways intended to reflect the most 
critical highway portions of the U.S. freight transportation system. 
Interstates that are not designated as PHFS are, by default, part of 
the NHFN and are called the Non-PHFS Interstate component of the NHFN. 
If a State's intent is to achieve eligibility to use NHFP funding, NHFN 
roadways are eligible for NHFP funds except for non-PHFS Interstate 
segments in High PHFS Mileage States. The FHWA notes that this is the 
structure that was created by Congress and FHWA does not have the 
authority for automatic designation of entire Interstate System as 
PHFS.
     Change requirements for PHFS mileage increase for re-
designation process.
    Statutory language at 23 U.S.C. 167(d)(2)(B) specifies that each 
re-designation is limited to a maximum 3 percent increase in the total 
mileage of the system. The FHWA notes that the mileage limitation for 
PHFS designation can be mitigated by designating other freight-critical 
segments of roadways for States as CRFCs and CUFCs, made possible with 
the expansion of CRFCs and CUFCs mileage allowances provided by the 
BIL.
     Modify provisions to increase the overall mileage of PHFS.
    The PHFS provides a system of roadways intended to reflect the most 
critical highway portions of the U.S. freight transportation system. If 
a desired addition to the network is necessary to achieve eligibility 
to use NHFP funding or for other purposes specific to a State (for 
example, to gain eligibility to use discretionary grant funding that 
requires NHFN designation), States and MPOs may add roadway segments to 
the NHFN using the process to designate CRFCs and CUFCs. Increased 
roadway mileage thresholds for the designation of CRFCs and CUFCs from 
the BIL expand flexibility to identify critical freight infrastructure 
as a component of the NHFN. The initial designation of the PHFS was set 
by the FAST Act as the 41,518-mile network identified during the 
designation process for the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act highway-only PFN under 23 U.S.C. 167(d). The FHWA does not 
have the authority to increase the mileage.

Expanding NHFP Funds Eligibility for NHFN

    Respondents recommended changing the statute to expand NHFP funds 
eligibility for all portions of the NHFN. High PHFS Mileage States 
would then be allowed to use their NHFP funds for projects on the PHFS, 
CRFCs, and CUFCs, as well as all Interstates. Currently, non-PHFS 
Interstates of the NHFN are eligible for NHFP funds only for Low PHFS 
Mileage States.
    The FHWA recognizes that the statutory language limits High PHFS 
Mileage States ability to program NHFP funds on all portions of the 
NHFN. Currently, a State in which the percent of PHFS mileage is 
greater than or equal to 2 percent of the national total may only use 
its NHFP funds for projects on the PHFS, CUFCs, and CRFCs unless they 
add designation for non-PHFS Interstates through the use of CRFCs and 
CUFCs.

Roadway Specific Additions, Deletion and Adjustments for PHFS Re-
Designation

    About two-thirds of the discrete comments received requested 
addition of PHFS mileage totaling 1,641 miles. Of

[[Page 78762]]

those, 65 percent were for Interstate miles and 32 percent were 
principal arterials. The remaining 3 percent of proposed additions were 
for other roadways of lower functional classifications. Sixty-three 
percent of miles requested for addition were from Low PHFS Mileage 
States, which sought 608 miles of Interstates and 401 miles of 
principal arterials. These Interstates submitted for PHFS re-
designation are by default a part of the NHFN and are automatically 
eligible for NHFP funding by Low PHFS Mileage States. More than one 
third of the PHFS mileage additions were requested by High PHFS Mileage 
States, which included requests for the addition of 457 Interstate 
miles and 131 miles of principal arterials. These requests for 
additional mileage range from less than one quarter mile to hundreds of 
miles of roadway segments, covering a large portion of a State.
    About one quarter of comments received requested removal or other 
technical correction of the existing PHFS. More than half of these 
changes are for roadway segments that are less than one mile long. 
About 70 percent of the mileage (86 miles) submitted for removal from 
PHFS designation were for toll roads. Other changes related to 
adjustments to correctly identify intermodal connectors, fix mapping 
errors, and to update network connectivity.
    A number of requested PHFS additions included fragmented roadway 
segments that did not provide continuity of the PHFS and did not meet 
PHFS re-designation criteria. These requests for PHFS additions would 
have required significant mileage to connect to the PHFS network. The 
PHFS provides a system of roadways that is most critical for freight 
movement. Network connectivity is a consideration for PHFS re-
designation and is necessary to provide continuity of PHFS roadways. To 
provide system-level network connectivity, one end of a PHFS roadway 
should connect with existing PHFS roadways. In response, FHWA suggests 
that if a desired addition to the network is necessary to achieve 
eligibility to use NHFP funding, States and MPOs may add a stand-alone 
segment to the NHFN using the process to designate CRFCs and CUFCs. The 
CUFCs and CURCs do not need to connect to the PHFS and are designated 
separately from the PHFS re-designation, on a rolling basis, using the 
mileage allotted to a State.
    A number of respondents from Low PHFS Mileage States identified 
Interstate mileage to be added as PHFS to expand roadways eligible for 
NHFP funding. Interstates that are not designated as PHFS are by 
default part of NHFN and are identified as Non-PHFS Interstates, a 
component of the NHFN. As such, the addition to the network is 
unnecessary for Low PHFS Mileages States to achieve eligibility to use 
NHFP funding as these Non-PHFS Interstates are automatically eligible 
for investment of NHFP by Low PHFS Mileage States. Designating all 
Interstates in those States as PHFS would not provide additional 
flexibility for States for programing NHFP funds.
    Respondents identified needs to provide a greater emphasis on 
designating arterial highways, Interstates that cross rural States and 
other areas, to increase resiliency of PHFS by ensuring redundancy in 
the system. As a result, respondents identified many large corridors 
including roadway traversing an entire State for PHFS re-designation. 
In response, FHWA reiterates that PHFS highways are intended to reflect 
the most critical highway portions of the U.S. freight transportation 
system, determined by measurable and objective national data. If a 
desired addition to the network is necessary to achieve eligibility to 
use NHFP funding or for other purpose specific to a State, States and 
MPOs may add a stand-alone segment to the NHFN using the process to 
designate CRFCs and CUFCs. Increased roadway mileage thresholds for the 
designation of CRFCs and CUFCs, provided by the BIL, expand the 
flexibility for States to identify critical freight infrastructure as a 
component of the NHFN. The FHWA attempted to accommodate requested 
mileage for PHFS re-designation that met re-designation criteria to the 
maximum extent practicable.
    Respondents also requested removal of self-financed toll facilities 
from PHFS by citing their interpretation of the statute that toll roads 
are an ineligible use for NHFP funds. The FHWA clarifies that toll 
facilities are eligible for NHFP funds and did not exclude toll 
facilities designated as PHFS for PHFS re-designation unless those 
facilities have been deemed by the States as no longer eligible for use 
by trucks. Toll roads using NHFP funding would necessarily become 
federalized, however, and need to adhere to all Title 23 requirements.
    The FHWA also conducted a separate review of the network for 
technical corrections and to improve mapping accuracy of the PHFS using 
State DOTs' linear referenced roadway network data that are submitted 
as the spatial route information for all roads in the States. The FHWA 
did not remove previously designated routes from the PHFS unless they 
are no longer eligible for use by trucks. This ensures continued 
alignment with the State Freight Plans completed by all States and the 
District of Columbia pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 70202, which were based in 
part on the existing PHFS network and funding eligibilities of NHFN 
routes.
    The FHWA made a number of corrections to PHFS, including correction 
of roadway mapping data, updates to roadway descriptions, corrections 
to represent new bypasses, adjustments to achieve network connectivity, 
and exclusion of roadways that are not open to public. Corrections were 
made to reflect change in access and network connectivity such as for 
facilities that are part of military base or where roadways have 
checkpoints to access ports.
    Section 167(d)(2) of title 23, U.S.C. requires the FHWA 
Administrator to re-designate PHFS every 5 years and provides for a 
maximum 3 percent increase in the total milage of the system. Per this 
Notice, the newly re-designated PHFS will be available in map format on 
the following site: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/ismt/nhfn_states_list.htm.

(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 167(d))

Stephanie Pollack,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-27875 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P