Federal-Aid Highway Systems

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 470

[Docket No. FHWA 97-2394]

RIN 2125-AD74

Federal-Aid Highway Systems

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending its regulation on Federal-aid highway

systems to incorporate changes made by the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the National Highway

System Designation Act of 1995. The ISTEA, among other things, added

provisions defining the Federal-aid highway systems as the Interstate

System and the National Highway System (NHS) which replaced the

provisions defining the Federal-aid highway systems as the Interstate,

Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systems. The purpose of this document is

to reflect the statutory changes in defining the Federal-aid highway

systems, reduce regulatory requirements and simplify recordkeeping

requirements imposed on States, and consolidate (in appendices to the

regulation) all nonregulatory guidance material issued previously by

the FHWA on this subject.

DATES: This interim final rule is effective July 21, 1997. Comments

must be received by August 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to the docket number that

appears in the heading of this document to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-

0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the

above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of

comments must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas R. Weeks, Intermodal and

Statewide Programs Division (202) 366-5002, or Grace Reidy, Office of

the Chief Counsel, HCC-32, (202) 366-6226, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA is amending its regulation at 23

CFR Part 470, subpart A, on Federal-aid highway systems to: (1) Reflect

recent statutory changes made by sections 1006, 1024, 1025, and 1105 of

the ISTEA, Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, and sections 101 and 332 of

the NHS Act, Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568; (2) reduce regulatory

requirements and simplify recordkeeping requirements imposed on States;

and (3) consolidate, in appendices to the regulation, all relevant

nonregulatory guidance previously issued in the FHWA's policy memoranda

and the ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide.'' The amended regulation, including

its appendices, now combines all policies and guidance on the Federal-

aid highway systems in a single document for easy reference.

For a number of years prior to the ISTEA, the Federal-aid highway

systems consisted of four components--the Primary System (which also

included the Interstate System), the Urban System, and the Secondary

System. These four highway systems established basic eligibility of

qualifying roads and streets for construction or improvement with

certain categories of Federal-aid highway funds, i.e., the Interstate,

Primary, Secondary, and Urban System apportionments. The ISTEA

restructured the Federal-aid highway systems by rescinding the Federal-

aid Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systems and requiring the

establishment of a new NHS. Certain components of the NHS were

specified by statute, including the Interstate System and 21 high

priority corridors. The ISTEA also required a functional

reclassification of all public roads and streets to determine

eligibility for inclusion on the NHS and eligibility for funding under

the Surface Transportation Program. Pending enactment of legislation

approving the NHS, the ISTEA established an interim NHS that was

eligible for funding under the NHS program and consisted of all rural

and urban routes which were functionally classified as principal

arterials.

During December 1993, a proposed NHS was submitted by the

Department of Transportation (DOT) to Congress for approval, and the

NHS was subsequently designated by the NHS Act. The NHS Act, within 180

days of enactment, required the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)

to submit to Congress for approval proposed additions to the NHS,

consisting of connections to major intermodal terminal facilities. The

NHS Act also authorized the Secretary to approve modifications to the

NHS, including, once the initial designations were enacted by law, the

connections to intermodal terminals. Finally, the NHS Act designated

eight additional high priority corridors on the NHS and designated all,

or part of, four high priority corridors as future Interstate routes.

The proposed NHS connections to major intermodal terminals were

submitted to Congress in May 1996. To date, Congress has not enacted

legislation regarding these additional routes.

The FHWA issued interim guidance in February 1996 establishing

procedures for use by the States in proposing modifications to the NHS.

Guidance for use by the States in proposing modifications to the

Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 was issued in 1986. Guidance for

use by the States in proposing additions to the Interstate System under

Section 332 of the NHS Act was issued in February 1996. Guidance for

signing and numbering routes identified as future parts of the

Interstate System was issued in August 1996 and later modified in

December 1996. All guidance material contained in the documents noted

above is incorporated in the regulation at 23 CFR part 470 as

nonregulatory appendices. The documents were initially issued as FHWA

Headquarters memoranda that

[[Page 33352]]

were transmitted by the field offices to their respective States.

Section-by-Section Analysis

All Sections and Appendices

All references to the former Federal-aid Primary, Secondary, and

Urban Systems are removed. A number of provisions that apply to the

former Federal-aid Primary System are carried over to the new NHS.

References to statewide and metropolitan transportation planning are

expanded to include new statutory statewide transportation planning

requirements and have been coordinated with terms used in the planning

regulations at 23 CFR part 450. The responsible State body for

proposing changes to the Federal-aid highway systems is now identified

as the State transportation agency.

Because of the substantial number of deletions and additions, the

existing rule is essentially reorganized and rewritten in its entirety.

Therefore, section numbers, appendices and titles used herein are those

of the interim final rule, unless labeled as a former section or

appendix. Wording carried forward, or revised, may be from a different

numbered and titled former section. Additional substantive changes made

in specific sections and appendices are described below.

Section 470.101 Purpose

The regulations are applied to designation of routes on the

statutory Federal-aid highway systems.

Section 470.103 Definitions

The revised statutory name of the Interstate System, the ``Dwight

D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways,'' is

taken from section 1005(e) of the ISTEA. Terms used in the regulation

are retained for ``governor'' and ``metropolitan planning

organization.'' The term for ``responsible local officials'' is a new

heading used in the regulation. Definitions are added for

``consultation,'' ``cooperation,'' ``coordination,'' ``Federal-aid

highway systems,'' ``Federal-aid highways,'' and ``State.'' Definitions

needed only for nonregulatory guidance are removed.

Section 470.105 Urban Area Boundaries and Highway Functional

Classification

The minimum boundaries for Federal-aid urban areas are established

by reference to census urban places and census urbanized areas.

Modification (enlargement) of the boundaries is permitted by 23 U.S.C.

101. Guidance for the modification of urban area boundaries is now

contained in FHWA's ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide,'' which is available

for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D,

and is available for purchase from the FHWA, Office of Management

Systems, HMS-12, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. The limits

of urban areas can be of importance in the planning and programing of

improvements to the Federal-aid and other highway systems.

Functional classification is a prerequisite for determining the

newly defined Federal-aid highways and National Highway System.

Procedures for functional classification of existing roads and streets

according to functional usage are contained in the FHWA publication,

``Highway Functional Classification--Concepts, Criteria and

Procedures'' (March 1989) which is available from the FHWA's Office of

Environment and Planning, HEP-10, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC

20590. The mapping and the FHWA approval requirements are retained.

Section 470.107 Federal-Aid Highway Systems

The new National Highway System includes the Interstate System and

other principal arterials serving major travel destinations and

transportation needs, connectors to major transportation terminals, the

Strategic Highway Network and connectors, and high priority corridors

identified by law.

Statutory limits on the lengths of the Federal-aid highway systems

are being given in terms of kilometers using the factor of 0.62

kilometers per mile. The portion of Interstate System mileage that may

be based on 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) is limited to

43,000 miles (41,000, 500, and 1,500 miles, respectively). The limit on

NHS mileage is based on 115 percent of 155,000 miles.

Section 470.109 Proposed System Designations--General

Provisions applicable to any Federal-aid highway system are grouped

in this section; those applicable to the Interstate or NHS are included

separately in the following sections. The details of route location,

mapping, and numbering are no longer covered by regulation.

Former Section 470.111 Reclassifications, Deletions, and

Reinstatements

This section regarding the applicability of State agreements to

maintain Federal-aid projects is deleted as it is a duplication of

other directives and inappropriate to regulations on highway systems.

Section 470.111 Proposed Interstate System Designations

Additions to the Interstate System may no longer be approved under

the authority of 23 U.S.C. 103(e), which created eligibility for

Interstate construction funds. Furthermore, there are no new

authorizations of Interstate construction funds. Basic procedural

requirements are retained, however, for possible Interstate

modifications under 23 U.S.C. 103(f). The interim final rule now

incorporates several special provisions that existed for Interstate

additions. Also, included in the interim final rule are the general

requirements for designation of routes as parts, or future parts, of

the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) or (b). These

designations are made by the FHWA Administrator for routes that would

be logical additions to the Interstate System and are, or will be,

constructed to Interstate standards.

The FHWA also includes special provisions for Interstate routes in

Alaska and Puerto Rico under 23 U.S.C. 139(c) and provisions regarding

four corridors designated as future Interstate routes in section

332(a)(2) of the NHS Act.

The interim final rule recognizes the important and long standing

role of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) in the review of proposed route numbers for

Interstate highways.

Although the law is clear that highways designated as future parts

of the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139(b) may not be signed as a

part of the Interstate System, it is silent on whether or not they may

be signed as a future part. Because of increased interest in such

signing, the FHWA is including reference to a policy (see appendix C of

the rule) recently established for the signing of future Interstate

corridors that have been established either under 23 U.S.C. 139(b), or

under section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Act. The conference report on the

latter section stated that the ``* * * provision is intended to permit

States to erect signs along such designated routes as `future'

Interstates upon enactment.''

Section 470.113 Proposed National Highway System Designations

There are no additional substantive changes.

[[Page 33353]]

Former Section 470.111 Reclassifications, Deletions, and Reinstatements

Provisions relating to State obligations with respect to Federal-

aid projects are removed.

Section 470.115 Approval authority

There are no additional substantive changes.

Former Part 470, Subpart A, Appendix A--Florida (National System of

Interstate and Defense Highways); Appendix B--Primary Federal-Aid

System; Appendix C--Urbanized Federal-Aid Urban System

Former Appendix A, with a detailed format for listing Interstate

highway descriptions, is removed as unnecessary. Former Appendices B

and C, which refer to former Federal-aid systems, are removed as

obsolete.

Part 470, Subpart A, Appendix A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating

Requests for Interstate System Designations under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and

(b)

The criteria for designations of highways as parts, or future

parts, of the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and (b),

respectively, have been virtually unchanged since 1986. The appendix

includes both statutory and administrative criteria.

Appendix B--Designation of Segments of Section 332(a)(2) Corridors as

Parts of the Interstate System

These procedures for addition of highways designated as future

parts of the Interstate System under section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Act

were issued as interim guidance in February 1996.

Appendix C--Policy for the Signing and Numbering of Future Interstate

Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS Designation Act of 1995

or Designated under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)

The policy for signing and numbering of future Interstate routes

was issued as an interim policy in August 1996 and revised in December

1996. Criteria are included to establish eligibility for consideration

of signing of future routes and are supplementary to normal signing

location, design, construction, and wording requirements.

Appendix D--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Modifications

to the National Highway System

The criteria for modifications of the National Highway System were

issued as interim guidance in February 1996. While essentially the same

as the interim guidance, several sections are being expanded for

clarification.

For ease of reference, the following table is provided to assist

the user in locating section and paragraph changes made in this

rulemaking:

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

Old Section New Section

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

470.101................................... 470.101 revised.

470.103(a)................................ 470.103 introductory

paragraph.

70.103(b):................................ 470.103 terms revised:

Urban area................................ Removed.

Rural area................................ Removed.

Public road............................... Removed.

Rural arterial routes..................... Removed.

Rural major collector routes.............. Removed.

Urban arterial routes..................... Removed.

Appropriate local officials............... Responsible local officials.

Governor.................................. Governor.

Metropolitan planning organization........ Metropolitan planning

organization.

Control area.............................. Removed.

None...................................... Consultation.

None...................................... Cooperation.

None...................................... Coordination.

None...................................... Federal-aid highway systems.

None...................................... Federal-aid highways.

None...................................... State.

470.105(a)................................ 470.107(a) revised.

470.105 (b)-(d)........................... Removed.

470.107 (a)-(b)........................... 470.105(a)-(b) revised.

470.107(c)................................ 470.109(a)-(e) revised.

470.107(d)................................ 470.107(a)-(b) revised.

470.107 (e)-(h)........................... Removed.

470.109................................... 470.111 and 470.113.

470.111................................... Removed.

470.113................................... 470.109.

470.115................................... 470.115.

470.117................................... Removed.

Appendices A, B, and C.................... Removed.

None...................................... Appendices A, B, C, and D.

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

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Because the amendments to this regulation are statutorily mandated,

incorporate existing policy, or essentially document well-established

procedures, requirements or practices, the FHWA finds that prior notice

and opportunity for comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(3)(B). The States have operated under the basic policies covered

by this regulation for many years. The amendments being made to this

regulation were specifically designed to simplify administrative

procedures, minimize regulatory burdens, and provide flexibility for

accomplishing required system actions. Therefore, the FHWA is not

exercising its discretion in a way that could be substantially affected

by public comment.

Since passage of the NHS Act, the FHWA developed and implemented

policies for modifying the NHS. The policies included in the interim

final rule for modifying the NHS are essentially the same. The criteria

for modifying the Interstate System under 23 U.S.C. 139 have been

virtually identical since 1986. The nonregulatory guidance for

numbering and signing future Interstate routes, although recently

issued, was developed through a consultative process. Only a few States

have expressed an interest in such signing.

For these reasons, the FHWA has also determined that prior notice

and opportunity for comment are not required under the Department of

Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, as it is not

anticipated that such action would result in the receipt of essential

information. Issuance of the amended regulation as an interim final

rule will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on any

aspect of the amended regulation and the nonregulatory appendices.

Depending on the nature and extent of the comments, the FHWA will

consider subsequent revisions to either the regulation or the

nonregulatory appendices. The FHWA will also publish a notice in the

Federal Register to summarize any comments received and any actions the

agency has taken, or plans to take, with regard to the comments.

Therefore, the FHWA is proceeding directly to an interim final rule,

which is effective 30 days from its date of publication.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this action is neither a significant

action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 nor significant

under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and

procedures. This rule establishes procedures for State highway agencies

to request modifications of established Federal-aid highway systems.

This interim final rule provides States with criteria for proposed

system modifications, route numbering, and signing. This rule will not

result in a major increase in costs or prices for State or local

governments. The rule will not have an adverse effect on competition,

employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability to

compete with foreign enterprises. It is anticipated that the economic

impact of this rulemaking will

[[Page 33354]]

be minimal, as the rule is not altering the amount of Federal-aid funds

made available, nor is it substantially changing the administrative

processing requirements for State transportation agencies. Therefore, a

full regulatory evaluation is not required. Nevertheless, the FHWA is

providing an opportunity for interested parties to comment upon the

possible economic consequences of the rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.L. 96-354, 5

U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has preliminarily determined that this

rulemaking will have virtually no economic impact on small entities.

The rulemaking is directed toward State governments. Although the

regulation being amended continues to require the States to cooperate

with responsible local officials in conjunction with certain highway

classification and system actions, the States will bear the

responsibility for initiating and completing this cooperation. The

States will coordinate with responsible local officials through

existing organizational mechanisms as a part of the ongoing statewide

and metropolitan transportation planning processes required by 23 CFR

part 450. Therefore, no unique or special arrangements are required,

nor expected, to accomplish the necessary cooperation.

The regulation clarifies, streamlines, and simplifies Federal-aid

highway systems policies for modification and management of the

systems. The primary impact of this rulemaking action, therefore, will

be a reduction in the administrative burden on the States associated

with Federal-aid system actions. Based on this evaluation, the FHWA

hereby certifies that this action will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been

determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The

purpose of this rule is to eliminate many administrative procedures and

recordkeeping requirements related to the Federal-aid highway system

actions that have been in place for many years, and to limit State

actions to those specifically required by Federal statute. The rule

will reduce costs and burdens on the States. It will not affect the

ability of the States to discharge traditional State governmental

functions. The rule relies on existing mechanisms--those established

through the statewide and metropolitan planning processes for the

involvement of local and metropolitan agencies in the management of the

Federal-aid highway systems. An overriding objective of the FHWA in

developing this rule is to minimize the regulatory requirements and

rely heavily on nonregulatory guidance in the management of proposed

changes to Federal-aid highway systems.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing

Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) concerns the

responsibility of Federal agencies in developing proposed collections

of information. The PRA is designed ``to reduce, minimize, and control

burdens and maximize the practical utility and public benefit of the

information created, collected, disclosed, maintained, used, shared,

and disseminated by or for the Federal Government.'' 23 CFR 1320.1.

Thus, the FHWA has a responsibility to determine if the PRA applies to

this rulemaking proceeding.

For many years, States and State transportation agencies have

operated pursuant to current regulations at 23 CFR part 470 that

contain criteria to request modifications of established Federal-aid

highway systems. Before enactment of the ISTEA, the Federal-aid highway

systems consisted of the Interstate, Primary, Secondary, and Urban

Systems. The ISTEA, however, restructured the Federal-aid highway

systems by rescinding the Federal-aid Primary, Secondary, and Urban

Systems and requiring the establishment of the NHS. The ISTEA also

required a functional reclassification of all public roads and streets

to determine eligibility for inclusion on the NHS and eligibility for

funding under the Surface Transportation Program. Another piece of

legislation, the NHS Act, designated the NHS and authorized the

Secretary to approve any modifications to the NHS. To assist States

with their system modifications, the FHWA previously issued interim

guidance establishing procedures for use by the States in proposing

modifications to the Interstate System and the NHS, and for signing and

numbering routes identified as future parts of the Interstate System.

Thus, the purpose of this interim final rule is to incorporate the

legislative changes mandated by the ISTEA and the NHS Act, as well as

the nonregulatory guidance material that the FHWA issued previously to

assist States in their efforts to modify the Federal-aid highway

systems. Only a few States have indicated that they are interested in

such signing.

The interim final rule specifies that States and State

transportation agencies can submit proposals for modifying the Federal-

aid highway systems by submitting certain information to the FHWA and,

in the case of Interstate route numbering proposals, to the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials route

numbering committee. As indicated above, the FHWA intends to include,

as appendices to the regulation at part 470, nonregulatory guidance

material issued previously by the agency to assist States in their

system modification efforts. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the public

disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government

to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure is not a collection of

information. Thus, the FHWA's consolidation of this nonregulatory

guidance material in the interim final rule does not violate the PRA.

It is also important to note that, under the PRA, a State agency is

not required to obtain approval of the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) to undertake on its own initiative to collect information.

However, in instances where the State agency's collection of

information is being ``conducted or sponsored'' by a Federal agency,

then the Federal agency would need to obtain OMB approval for any

collection of information. Thus, another inquiry to be made in this

rulemaking would be whether a State's proposal to modify the Federal-

aid highway system is a collection of information ``conducted or

sponsored'' by the FHWA. The FHWA believes that it is not.

First, under 49 CFR 1320.3(d), a collection of information

undertaken by a recipient (here the State) of a Federal grant is

considered to be ``conducted or sponsored'' by an agency only if: (1)

The recipient of a grant is conducting the collection of information at

the specific request of the agency; or (2) the terms and conditions of

the grant require specific approval by the agency of the collection of

information or collection procedures. In this interim final rule,

[[Page 33355]]

the FHWA is not requesting the States to collect information to modify

the Federal-aid highway systems. Nor is the State's submittal of a

proposed modification a prerequisite for a Federal grant. Presumably,

the FHWA must first approve a State's proposal to modify the Federal-

aid highway systems before a route can be added to the Interstate

System or the NHS, but the FHWA is not requesting this collection of

information. States that seek to modify the Interstate System and the

NHS can follow the criteria set forth at part 470 to accomplish

requested system modifications. This interim final rule merely provides

the States with revised regulations to assist them in their efforts.

Second, the FHWA does not believe that this action constitutes a

collection of information under the PRA because the interim final rule

does not impose requirements on ``ten or more persons.'' 49 CFR

1320.(3)(c). The phrase ``ten or more persons'' refers to the persons

to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency within

any 12-month period, and to any independent entities to which the

initial addressee may reasonably be expected to transmit the collection

of information during that period, including independent State,

territorial, tribal or local entities and separately incorporated

subsidiaries or affiliates. 49 CFR 1320.3(c)(4). Because the FHWA does

not expect to address more than 10 requests by States to modify route

designations during any 12-month period, it does not constitute a

``collection of information'' covered by the PRA.

Accordingly, the FHWA is amending its regulation on Federal-aid

highway systems to incorporate statutory changes made by the ISTEA and

the NHS Act, and to include in this amended regulation all relevant

appendices of nonregulatory guidance previously issued in FHWA policy

memoranda and the ``Federal-aid Policy Guide'' to assist States in

proposing modifications to the Interstate System and the NHS. The

interim final rule will provide States and State transportation

agencies with criteria for proposed system modifications, route

numbering, and signing. This action will also reduce regulatory

requirements, simplify administrative procedures and recordkeeping

requirements, and provide flexibility to accomplish State-requested

system actions.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this section for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and

has determined that this action would not have any effect on the

quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number (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 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 470

Grant programs--transportation, Highway planning, Highways and

roads.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 23,

CFR, chapter I, by revising subpart A of part 470 as set forth below.

Issued on: June 11, 1997.

Jane F. Garvey,

Acting Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration.

PART 470--HIGHWAY SYSTEMS

1. The authority citation for part 470 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(2), 103 (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3),

103(f), 134, 135, and 315; and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(2).

Subpart A--[Revised]

2. Subpart A of part 470 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--Federal-aid Highway Systems

Sec.

470.101 Purpose.

470.103 Definitions.

470.105 Urban area boundaries and highway functional

classification.

470.107 Federal-aid highway systems.

470.109 System procedures--General.

470.111 Interstate System procedures.

470.113 National Highway System procedures.

470.115 Approval authority.

Appendix A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Interstate

System Designations under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and (b).

Appendix B--Designation of Segments of Section 332(a)(2) Corridors

as Parts of the Interstate System.

Appendix C--Policy for the Signing and Numbering of Future

Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS

Designation Act of 1995 or Designated under 23 U.S.C. 139(b).

Appendix D--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for

Modifications to the National Highway System.

Subpart A--Federal-aid Highway Systems

Sec. 470.101 Purpose.

This part sets forth policies and procedures relating to the

identification of Federal-aid highways, the functional classification

of roads and streets, the designation of urban area boundaries, and the

designation of routes on the Federal-aid highway systems.

Sec. 470.103 Definitions.

Except as otherwise provided in this part, terms defined in 23

U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this part as so defined.

Consultation means that one party confers with another identified

party and, prior to taking action(s), considers that party's views.

Cooperation means that the parties involved in carrying out the

planning, programming and management systems processes work together to

achieve a common goal or objective.

Coordination means the comparison of the transportation plans,

programs, and schedules of one agency with related plans, programs, and

schedules of other agencies or entities with legal standing, and

adjustment of plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general

consistency.

Federal-aid highway systems means the National Highway System and

the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense

Highways (the ``Interstate System'').

Federal-aid highways means highways on the Federal-aid highway

systems and all other public roads not classified as local roads or

rural minor collectors.

Governor means the chief executive of the State and includes the

Mayor of the District of Columbia.

Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the forum for

cooperative transportation decisionmaking for the metropolitan planning

area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process required

by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305 must be carried out.

Responsible local officials means--

(1) In urbanized areas, principal elected officials of general

purpose local governments acting through the Metropolitan Planning

Organization designated by the Governor, or

(2) In rural areas and urban areas not within any urbanized area,

principal elected officials of general purpose local governments.

State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico, or, for purposes of functional classification of highways,

the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the

[[Page 33356]]

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.

Sec. 470.105 Urban area boundaries and highway functional

classification.

(a) Urban area boundaries. Routes on the Federal-aid highway

systems may be designated in both rural and urban areas. Guidance for

determining the boundaries of urbanized and nonurbanized urban areas is

provided in the ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide,'' Chapter 4 [G 4063.0],

dated December 9, 1991.1

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

\1\ The ``Federal-aid Policy Guide'' is available for inspection

and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, Appendix D.

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

(b) Highway Functional Classification. (1) The State transportation

agency shall have the primary responsibility for developing and

updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and

urban areas to determine functional usage of the existing roads and

streets. Guidance criteria and procedures are provided in the FHWA

publication ``Highway Functional Classification--Concepts, Criteria and

Procedures.'' 2 The State shall cooperate with responsible

local officials, or appropriate Federal agency in the case of areas

under Federal jurisdiction, in developing and updating the functional

classification.

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

\2\ This publication, revised in March 1989, is available on

request to the FHWA, Office of Environment and Planning, HEP-10, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

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

(2) The results of the functional classification shall be mapped

and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval

and when approved shall serve as the official record for Federal-aid

highways and the basis for designation of the National Highway System.

Sec. 470.107 Federal-aid highway systems.

(a) Interstate System. (1) The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System

of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate System) shall consist of

routes of highest importance to the Nation, built to the uniform

geometric and construction standards of 23 U.S.C. 109(h), which

connect, as directly as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas,

cities, and industrial centers, including important routes into,

through, and around urban areas, serve the national defense and, to the

greatest extent possible, connect at suitable border points with routes

of continental importance in Canada and Mexico.

(2) The portion of the Interstate System designated under 23 U.S.C.

103 (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) shall not exceed 69,230 kilometers

(43,000 miles). Additional Interstate System segments are permitted

under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and (c) and section

1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, as amended.

(b) National Highway System. (1) The National Highway System shall

consist of interconnected urban and rural principal arterials and

highways (including toll facilities) which serve major population

centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public

transportation facilities, other intermodal transportation facilities

and other major travel destinations; meet national defense

requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. All routes

on the Interstate System are a part of the National Highway System.

(2) The National Highway System shall not exceed 286,983 kilometers

(178,250 miles).

(3) The National Highway System shall include the Strategic Highway

Corridor Network (STRAHNET) and its highway connectors to major

military installations, as designated by the Administrator in

consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and the States. The

STRAHNET includes highways which are important to the United States

strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity,

and emergency capabilities for the movement of personnel, materials,

and equipment in both peace time and war time.

(4) The National Highway System shall include all high priority

corridors identified in section 1105(c) of the ISTEA.

Sec. 470.109 System procedures--General.

(a) The State transportation agency, in consultation with

responsible local officials, shall have the responsibility for

proposing to the Federal Highway Administration all official actions

regarding the designation, or revision, of the Federal-aid highway

systems.

(b) The routes of the Federal-aid highway systems shall be proposed

by coordinated action of the State transportation agencies where the

routes involve State-line connections.

(c) The designation of routes on the Federal-aid highway systems

shall be in accordance with the planning process required, pursuant to

the provisions at 23 U.S.C. 135, and, in urbanized areas, the

provisions at 23 U.S.C. 134(a). The State shall cooperate with local

and regional officials. In urbanized areas, the local officials shall

act through the metropolitan planning organizations designated for such

areas under 23 U.S.C. 134.

(d) In areas under Federal jurisdiction, the designation of routes

on the Federal-aid highway systems shall be coordinated with the

appropriate Federal agency.

Sec. 470.111 Interstate System procedures.

(a) Proposals for system actions on the Interstate System shall

include a route description and a statement of justification. Proposals

shall also include statements regarding coordination with adjoining

States on State-line connections, with responsible local officials, and

with officials of areas under Federal jurisdiction.

(b) Proposals for Interstate or future Interstate designation under

23 U.S.C. 139(a) or (b), as logical additions or connections, shall

consider the criteria contained in appendix A of this subpart. For

designation as a part of the Interstate system, 23 U.S.C. 139(a)

requires that a highway meet all the standards of a highway on the

Interstate System, be a logical addition or connection to the

Interstate System, and have the affirmative recommendation of the State

or States involved. For designation as a future part of the Interstate

System, 23 U.S.C. 139(b) requires that a highway be a logical addition

or connection to the Interstate System, have the affirmative

recommendation of the State or States involved, and have the written

agreement of the State or States involved that such highway will be

constructed to meet all the standards of a highway on the Interstate

System within twelve years of the date of the agreement between the

FHWA Administrator and the State or States involved. Such highways must

also be on the National Highway System.

(c) Proposals for Interstate designation under 23 U.S.C. 139(c)

shall pertain only to Alaska or Puerto Rico. For designation as parts

of the Interstate System, 23 U.S.C. 139(c) requires that highway

segments be in States which have no Interstate System; be logical

components to a system serving the State's principal cities, national

defense needs and military installations, and traffic generated by

rail, water, and air transportation modes; and have been constructed to

the geometric and construction standards adequate for current and

probable future traffic demands and the needs of the locality of the

segment. Such highways must also be on the National Highway System.

(d) Routes proposed for Interstate designation under section

332(a)(2) of the NHS Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act) shall be

constructed to Interstate standards and connect to the Interstate

[[Page 33357]]

System. Proposals shall consider the criteria contained in appendix B

of this subpart.

(e) Proposals for Interstate route numbering shall be submitted by

the State transportation agency to the Route Numbering Committee of the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

(f) Signing of corridors federally designated as future Interstate

routes can follow the criteria contained in appendix C of this subpart.

No law, rule, regulation, map, document, or other record of the United

States, or of any State or political subdivision thereof, shall refer

to any highway under 23 U.S.C. 139, nor shall any such highway be

signed or marked, as a highway on the Interstate System until such time

as such highway is constructed to the geometric and construction

standards for the Interstate System and has been designated as a part

of the Interstate System.

Sec. 470.113 National Highway System procedures.

(a) Proposals for system actions on the National Highway System

shall include a route description, a statement of justification, and

statements of coordination with adjoining States on State-line

connections, with responsible local officials, and with officials of

areas under Federal jurisdiction.

(b) Proposed modifications to the National Highway System shall

enhance the national transportation characteristics of the National

Highway System and shall follow the criteria listed in Sec. 470.107.

Proposals shall also consider the criteria contained in appendix D of

this subpart.

Sec. 470.115 Approval authority.

(a) The Federal Highway Administrator will approve Federal-aid

highway system actions involving the designation, or revision, of

routes on the Interstate System, including route numbers, future

Interstate routes, and routes on the National Highway System.

(b) The Federal Highway Administrator will approve functional

classification actions.

Appendix A to Part 470, Subpart A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating

Requests for Interstate System Designations Under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and

(b)

Section 139 (a) and (b), of title 23, U.S.C., permits States to

request the designation of National Highway System routes as parts

or future parts of the Interstate System. The FHWA Administrator may

approve such a request if the route is a logical addition or

connection to the Interstate System and has been, or will be,

constructed to meet Interstate standards. The following are the

general criteria to be used to evaluate 23 U.S.C. 139 requests for

Interstate System designations.

1. The proposed route should be of sufficient length to serve

long-distance Interstate travel, such as connecting routes between

principal metropolitan cities or industrial centers important to

national defense and economic development.

2. The proposed route should not duplicate other Interstate

routes. It should serve Interstate traffic movement not provided by

another Interstate route.

3. The proposed route should directly serve major highway

traffic generators. The term ``major highway traffic generator''

means either an urbanized area with a population over 100,000 or a

similar major concentrated land use activity that produces and

attracts long-distance Interstate and statewide travel of persons

and goods. Typical examples of similar major concentrated land use

activities would include a principal industrial complex, government

center, military installation, or transportation terminal.

4. The proposed route should connect to the Interstate System at

each end, with the exception of Interstate routes that connect with

continental routes at an international border, or terminate in a

``major highway traffic generator'' that is not served by another

Interstate route. In the latter case, the terminus of the Interstate

route should connect to routes of the National Highway System that

will adequately handle the traffic. The proposed route also must be

functionally classified as a principal arterial and be a part of the

National Highway System system.

5. The proposed route must meet all the current geometric and

safety standards criteria as set forth in 23 CFR part 625 for

highways on the Interstate System, or a formal agreement to

construct the route to such standards within 12 years must be

executed between the State(s) and the Federal Highway

Administration. Any proposed exceptions to the standards shall be

approved at the time of designation.

6. A route being proposed for designation under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)

must have an approved final environmental document (including, if

required, a 49 U.S.C. 303(c) [Section 4(f)] approval) covering the

route and project action must be ready to proceed with design at the

time of designation. Routes constructed to Interstate standards are

not necessarily logical additions to the Interstate System unless

they clearly meet all of the above criteria.

Appendix B to Part 470, Subpart A--Designation of Segments of Section

332(a)(2) Corridors as Parts of the Interstate System

The following guidance is comparable to current procedures for

Interstate System designation requests under 23 U.S.C. 139(a). All

Interstate System additions must be approved by the Federal Highway

Administrator. The provisions of section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Act

have also been incorporated into the ISTEA as section 1105(e)(5)(A).

1. The request must be submitted through the appropriate FHWA

Division and Regional Offices to the Associate Administrator for

Program Development (HEP-10). Comments and recommendations by the

division and regional offices are requested.

2. The State DOT secretary (or equivalent) must request that the

route segment be added to the Interstate System. The exact location

and termini must be specified. If the route segment involves more

than one State, each affected State must submit a separate request.

3. The request must provide information to support findings that

the segment (a) is built to Interstate design standards and (b)

connects to the existing Interstate System. The segment should be of

sufficient length to provide substantial service to the travelling

public.

4. The request must also identify and justify any design

exceptions for which approval is requested.

5. Proposed Interstate route numbering for the segment must be

submitted to FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials Route Numbering Committee.

Appendix C to Part 470, Subpart A--Policy for the Signing and Numbering

of Future Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS

Designation Act of 1995 or Designated Under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)

Policy

State transportation agencies are permitted to erect

informational Interstate signs along a federally designated future

Interstate corridor only after the specific route location has been

established for the route to be constructed to Interstate design

standards.

Conditions

1. The corridor must have been designated a future part of the

Interstate System under section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Designation Act

of 1995 or 23 U.S.C. 139(b).

2. The specific route location to appropriate termini must have

received Federal Highway (FHWA) environmental clearance. Where FHWA

environmental clearance is not required or Interstate standards have

been met, the route location must have been publicly announced by

the State.

3. Numbering of future Interstate route segments must be

coordinated with affected States and be approved by the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the

FHWA at Headquarters. Short portions of a multistate corridor may

require use of an interim 3-digit number.

4. The State shall coordinate the location and content of

signing near the State line with the adjacent State.

5. Signing and other identification of a future Interstate route

segment must not indicate, nor imply, that the route is on the

Interstate System.

6. The FHWA Regional Office must confirm in advance that the

above conditions have been met and approve the general locations of

signs.

[[Page 33358]]

Sign Details

1. Signs may not be used to give directions and should be away

from directional signs, particularly at interchanges.

2. An Interstate shield may be located on a green informational

sign of a few words. For example: Future Interstate Corridor or

Future I-00 Corridor.

3. The Interstate shield may not include the word

``Interstate.''

4. The FHWA Division Office must approve the signs as to design,

wording, and detailed location.

Appendix D to Part 470, Subpart A--Guidance Criteria for Evaluating

Requests for Modifications to the National Highway System

Section 103(b), of title 23, U.S.C., allows the States to

propose modifications to the National Highway System (NHS) and

authorizes the Secretary to approve such modifications provided that

they meet the criteria established for the NHS and enhance the

characteristics of the NHS. In proposing modifications under 23

U.S.C. 103(b), the States must cooperate with local and regional

officials. In urbanized areas, the local officials must act through

the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) designated for such

areas under 23 U.S.C. 134. The following guidance criteria should be

used by the States to develop proposed modifications to the NHS.

1. Proposed additions to the NHS should be included in either an

adopted State or metropolitan transportation plan or program.

2. Proposed additions should connect at each end with other

routes on the NHS or serve a major traffic generator.

3. Proposals should be developed in consultation with local and

regional officials.

4. Proposals to add routes to the NHS should include information

on the type of traffic served (i.e., percent of trucks, average trip

length, local, commuter, interregional, interstate) by the route,

the population centers or major traffic generators served by the

route, and how this service compares with existing NHS routes.

5. Proposals should include information on existing and

anticipated needs and any planned improvements to the route.

6. Proposals should include information concerning the possible

effects of adding or deleting a route to or from the NHS might have

on other existing NHS routes that are in close proximity.

7. Proposals to add routes to the NHS should include an

assessment of whether modifications (adjustments or deletions) to

existing NHS routes, which provide similar service, may be

appropriate.

8. Proposed modifications that might affect adjoining States

should be developed in cooperation with those States.

9. Proposed modifications consisting of connections to major

intermodal facilities should be developed using the criteria set

forth below. These criteria were used for identifying initial NHS

connections to major intermodal terminals. The primary criteria are

based on annual passenger volumes, annual freight volumes, or daily

vehicular traffic on one or more principal routes that serve the

intermodal facility. The secondary criteria include factors which

underscore the importance of an intermodal facility within a

specific State.

Primary Criteria

Commercial Aviation Airports

1. Passengers--scheduled commercial service with more than

250,000 annual enplanements.

2. Cargo--100 trucks per day in each direction on the principal

connecting route, or 100,000 tons per year arriving or departing by

highway mode.

Ports

1. Terminals that handle more than 50,000 TEUs (a volumetric

measure of containerized cargo which stands for twenty-foot

equivalent units) per year, or other units measured that would

convert to more than 100 trucks per day in each direction. (Trucks

are defined as large single-unit trucks or combination vehicles

handling freight.)

2. Bulk commodity terminals that handle more than 500,000 tons

per year by highway or 100 trucks per day in each direction on the

principal connecting route. (If no individual terminal handles this

amount of freight, but a cluster of terminals in close proximity to

each other does, then the cluster of terminals could be considered

in meeting the criteria. In such cases, the connecting route might

terminate at a point where the traffic to several terminals begins

to separate.)

3. Passengers--terminals that handle more than 250,000

passengers per year or 1,000 passengers per day for at least 90 days

during the year.

Truck/Rail

1. 50,000 TEUs per year, or 100 trucks per day, in each

direction on the principal connecting route, or other units measured

that would convert to more than 100 trucks per day in each

direction. (Trucks are defined as large single-unit trucks or

combination vehicles carrying freight.)

Pipelines

1. 100 trucks per day in each direction on the principal

connecting route.

Amtrak

1. 100,000 passengers per year (entrainments and detrainments).

Joint Amtrak, intercity bus and public transit terminals should be

considered based on the combined passenger volumes. Likewise, two or

more separate facilities in close proximity should be considered

based on combined passenger volumes.

Intercity Bus

1. 100,000 passengers per year (boardings and deboardings).

Public Transit

1. Stations with park and ride lots with more than 500 vehicle

parking spaces, or 5,000 daily bus or rail passengers, with

significant highway access (i.e., a high percentage of the

passengers arrive by cars and buses using a route that connects to

another NHS route), or a major hub terminal that provides for the

transfer of passengers among several bus routes. (These hubs should

have a significant number of buses using a principal route

connecting with the NHS.)

Ferries

1. Interstate/international--1,000 passengers per day for at

least 90 days during the year. (A ferry which connects two terminals

within the same metropolitan area should be considered as local, not

interstate.)

2. Local--see public transit criteria above.

Secondary Criteria

Any of the following criteria could be used to justify an NHS

connection to an intermodal terminal where there is a significant

highway interface:

1. Intermodal terminals that handle more than 20 percent of

passenger or freight volumes by mode within a State;

2. Intermodal terminals identified either in the Intermodal

Management System or the State and metropolitan transportation plans

as a major facility;

3. Significant investment in, or expansion of, an intermodal

terminal; or

4. Connecting routes targeted by the State, MPO, or others for

investment to address an existing, or anticipated, deficiency as a

result of increased traffic.

Proximate Connections

Intermodal terminals, identified under the secondary criteria

noted above, may not have sufficient highway traffic volumes to

justify an NHS connection to the terminal. States and MPOs should

fully consider whether a direct connection should be identified for

such terminals, or whether being in the proximity (2 to 3 miles) of

an NHS route is sufficient.

[FR Doc. 97-16081 Filed 6-18-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P