Interstate System Access, 88118-88128 [2024-25757]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 88118-88128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25757]


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

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 [email protected], or Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, Office 
of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-3813, or via email at 
[email protected]. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., 2017 Interstate Access Policy, dated May 22, 2017 
(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 88119]]

    To facilitate implementation of the statutory requirements 
regarding changes in access to the federally-funded 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 de-
designation 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 Sec.  
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.

[[Page 88120]]

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.

Sec.  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 
Sec.  624.1. No change was made in the final regulatory text.

Sec.  624.3 Applicability

    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec.  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 
Sec.  624.3(d) and (e) based on comments received.
    In Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  624.3 Applicability or Sec.  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 Sec.  624.3 to clarify an exception 
for low volume connections to non-freeway segments of the Interstate 
System located in Alaska or Puerto Rico.
    Comment: A commenter requested clarification on whether the 
exemption in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 general-purpose lanes, particularly concerning 
merging and diverging movements. They recommended further clarification 
regarding this exception.

[[Page 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-of-way 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.

Sec.  624.5 Definitions

    Changes to the proposed regulatory text were made based on comments 
received pertaining to the definitions in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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-of-way.
    Comment: One individual suggested that the definition of ``Access 
Point'' in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  625.4. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
    Comment: A commenter recommended providing a definition in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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, collector-distributor 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

[[Page 88122]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  624.5 as a permanent 
connection to facilities comprising the Interstate System, such as the 
through lanes or shoulders, managed lanes, collector-distributor 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 Sec.  
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.

Sec.  624.7 Interstate System Access Requirements

    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  624.7 applies outside of the metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPO).
    Response: The traffic data requirement in Sec.  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 Sec.  624.7.
    Response: A partial interchange is an interchange that does not 
provide all of the basic movements, as defined in Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 88123]]

community. No change was made in the final regulatory text.
    Comment: A commenter recommended in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  624.9(e). No change was 
made in the final regulatory text.
    Comment: Commenters recommend in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 88124]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  624.7(f) to add an exception for 
this purpose.

Sec.  624.9 Approval Process

    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec.  624.9 sets out 
the approval process for a change in access to the Interstate System. 
The phrase ``congestion management process'' was removed from Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.

Sec.  624.11 Interstate Access Justification Report

    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  624.11(b)(3) provide 
flexibility to shrink as well as expand the analysis limits based on 
the project complexity.
    Response: Section Sec.  624.11(b)(3) provides flexibility to extend 
the analysis to ensure that the limits are appropriate to fully 
understand the

[[Page 88125]]

impact of the proposed changes in access on the Interstate System and 
local road network. Section Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  624.13 Programmatic Agreement

    Consistent with the proposed regulatory text, Sec.  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 Federal-aid 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/interstate-system-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

[[Page 88126]]

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.


0
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.


Sec.  624.1  Purpose.

    To prescribe requirements and procedures for State requests for, 
and FHWA consideration of, changes in access to the Interstate System.


Sec.  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-of-way 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 Sec.  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-of-way 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.


Sec.  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, 
collector-distributor roads, or ramps on the Interstate System, 
including ``locked gate access''.
    Area of influence. The geographic extent to which a proposed change 
in access will affect traffic operations and safety.
    Change in access. The addition of a new, or modification of an 
existing, interchange or access point along the Interstate System.
    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 
high-occupancy 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

[[Page 88127]]

is located within the Interstate System right-of-way.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
624.7 continue to be met based on current and projected future 
conditions.


Sec.  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 full-interchange 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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 88128]]

any part of the following types of change in access requests:
    (1) New freeway-to-crossroad (service) interchanges;
    (2) Modifications to existing freeway-to-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