80 FR 60732 - Revision of Thirteen Controlling Criteria for Design; Notice and Request for Comment
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 194 (October 7, 2015)
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 194 (October 7, 2015)
| Page Range | 60732-60735 | |
| FR Document | 2015-25526 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 60732-60735] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-25526] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2015-0020] Revision of Thirteen Controlling Criteria for Design; Notice and Request for Comment AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The geometric design standards for projects on the National Highway System (NHS) are incorporated by reference in FHWA regulations. These design standards are comprehensive in nature, covering a multitude of design characteristics, while allowing flexibility in application. Exceptions may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not conform to the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications. The FHWA is updating its policy regarding controlling criteria for design. The current policy identifies 13 controlling criteria for design and requires formal design exceptions when any of the 13 controlling criteria are not met. The FHWA intends to further streamline the controlling criteria, and the application of these criteria, based on the results of recent research that evaluated the safety and operational effects of the 13 controlling criteria. The FHWA also intends to clarify when design exceptions are required and the documentation that is expected to support such requests. This notice solicits comments on the proposed revisions to the 13 controlling criteria for the design of projects on the NHS that require a design exception when adopted design criteria are not met, in accordance with FHWA regulations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or fax comments to (202) 493- 2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments must include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). Anyone may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the program discussed herein, contact Elizabeth Hilton, Geometric Design Engineer, FHWA Office of Program Administration, (512) 536-5970 or via email at elizabeth.hilton@dot.gov. For legal questions, please contact Robert Black, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1359, or via email at Robert.Black@dot.gov. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.thefederalregister.org/nara. Purpose of This Notice The FHWA is requesting comment on proposed revisions to the 13 controlling criteria for the design of projects on the NHS that require a design exception when not met, in accordance with 23 CFR 625.3(f). Design exceptions are an administrative tool used to document an engineer's evaluation of possible solutions to a specific design issue, including the operational and safety performance of each option, impacts to the human and natural environment, and other factors, and demonstrating the reasons a particular solution that does not meet applicable design standards was selected. Many States have their own process for reviewing design deviations when State or Federal design criteria are not met. When used in this Notice, the term `design exception' refers to documentation prepared for projects on the NHS when a controlling criterion is not met, and that must be approved by the FHWA or on behalf of FHWA if a State Transportation Agency (STA) has assumed this responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement. Stewardship and Oversight agreements set forth the agreement between FHWA and each STA on the roles and responsibilities of FHWA and the STA with respect to Title 23 project [[Page 60733]] approvals and related responsibilities and oversight activities. The FHWA also intends to clarify when design exceptions are required and the documentation that is expected to support such requests. Comments received through this Notice will be considered by FHWA when revising the controlling criteria for the design of projects on the NHS, as well as design exception documentation and application. Background As codified in 23 CFR 625.3 and 625.4, the geometric design standards for projects on the NHS are A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2001) and A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005), published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Rulemaking is underway to adopt the current (2011) edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. These design standards are comprehensive in nature, covering a multitude of design characteristics, while allowing flexibility in application. As codified in 23 CFR 625.3(f), and in accordance with the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A, exceptions may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not conform to the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications adopted in 23 CFR part 625. The FHWA issued a policy memorandum on April 15, 1985, available on the docket for this notice, and on FHWA's Web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/850415.cfm, which identified 13 criteria contained in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and designated them as controlling criteria. The policy required formal design exceptions when any of the 13 controlling criteria were not met. The FHWA proposes to streamline the 13 controlling criteria to refine the focus on criteria with the greatest impact on road safety and operation. This streamlined application of the controlling criteria is consistent with the industry's move toward a modified design approach, often referred to as performance based practical design (PBPD), and will reduce the instances when a design exception must be prepared when applicable design standards are not met for projects on the NHS. The controlling design criteria set forth in 1985 are: Design speed, lane width, shoulder width, bridge width, horizontal alignment, superelevation, vertical alignment, grade, stopping sight distance, cross slope, vertical clearance, horizontal clearance, and structural capacity. The term `horizontal clearance' was initially interpreted as the `clear zone' described in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/850415.cfm), but in the early 1990s was clarified to mean `lateral offset to obstruction' as described in the AASHTO geometric design policies (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/930525.cfm). Recent research, culminating in publications of the most recent Highway Capacity Manual (2010, Transportation Research Board) and the Highway Safety Manual (2010, AASHTO), developed much greater knowledge of the traffic operational and safety effects of the controlling criteria than was available when they were established. The NCHRP Report 783 ``Evaluation of the 13 Controlling Criteria for Geometric Design'' (2014) specifically examined the safety and operational effects of the existing controlling criteria. The PBPD is an approach to decisionmaking that encourages engineered solutions rather than relying on minimum, maximum, or limiting values found in design criteria. The PBPD is grounded in an analytic framework that enables transportation agencies to utilize existing design flexibility and analytical tools in a way that maximizes benefits while minimizing costs. The PBPD does not disregard engineering guidance or standards. Rather, flexibility in design typically requires more information and a higher level of analysis when defining and deciding on the most appropriate design value for a particular location. Consistent with FHWA's efforts regarding PBPD and to ensure that design exceptions are only required for criteria with significant safety or operational effects, FHWA intends to streamline the controlling criteria based on the findings of recent research. Since 1985, the controlling criteria have been applied to all projects, regardless of roadway type or context. The NCHRP Report 783 found that the 13 controlling criteria had minimal influence on the safety or operations on urban streets. On rural roadways, freeways, and high- speed urban/suburban roadways, a stronger connection to safety and operations was found for some of the criteria than for others. Proposed Revisions to Controlling Criteria Based on the findings of NCHRP Report 783 and FHWA's own assessment and experience, FHWA proposes to eliminate the following controlling criteria:Bridge Width. Vertical Alignment. Lateral Offset to Obstruction. To improve clarity, FHWA proposes to rename the following existing controlling criteria: Horizontal Alignment to be renamed Horizontal Curve Radius. Grade to be renamed Maximum Grade. Structural Capacity to be renamed Design Loading Structural Capacity. The resulting controlling criteria for design are proposed as follows: Design Speed. Lane Width. Shoulder Width. Horizontal Curve Radius. Superelevation. Stopping Sight Distance. Maximum Grade. Cross Slope. Vertical Clearance. Design Loading Structural Capacity. The FHWA also proposes a revision to the application of the controlling criteria. Most controlling criteria would apply only to high-speed [design speed >=50 mph (80 km/h)] roadways. Only design loading structural capacity and design speed would continue to be applied to all NHS facility types. Research indicates that the current controlling criteria are less influential on the traffic operational and safety performance of low-speed urban and suburban arterials than other features such as intersection design and access management strategies. Therefore, consistent with FHWA's risk-based approach to stewardship and oversight, FHWA intends to focus application of the controlling criteria on high-speed NHS roadways [design speed >= 50 mph (80 km/h)]. On low-speed NHS roadways [design speed <50 mph (80 km/h)], design exceptions are proposed to only be required by FHWA for deviations from the design speed or design loading structural capacity criteria. Exceptions to the controlling criteria must be carefully evaluated and approved by FHWA or on behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement. While all of the criteria contained in the adopted standards are important design considerations, they do not all affect the safety and operations of a roadway to the same degree, and therefore should not require the same level of administrative control. Based on the findings of recent research and FHWA's assessment and experience, a brief discussion on each of the proposed changes to the controlling criteria is provided below. [[Page 60734]] Controlling Criteria FHWA Proposes To Eliminate 1. Bridge width is proposed to be removed from the list of controlling criteria because research found little relationship between bridge width and crash frequency on rural, two-lane highways and surmised the same would be true for other roadway types. Lane and shoulder width criteria apply to roadways and bridges, so any deficiency in bridge width will require design exception documentation if the lane or shoulder width criteria is not met under this proposal. Design criteria allow lesser shoulder width, and therefore lesser bridge widths, on long bridges [overall length over 200 feet (60 m)]. If the minimum lane or shoulder widths are not provided on a long bridge, the deviation would be documented as a lane or shoulder width design exception under the proposed revisions to controlling criteria. 2. Vertical alignment is proposed to be removed from the list of controlling criteria. Three of the existing criteria relate to vertical alignment. Crest vertical curve design is covered under the stopping sight distance criterion. Grade is explicitly covered as a separate criterion, leaving only sag vertical curve length to be covered under the vertical alignment criterion. While research has confirmed the interrelationship between vehicle headlight illuminations, sag vertical curves, and sight distance to features in the roadway, no relationship has extended to the effect of these combined elements on crashes. Furthermore, except when a horizontal curve or overhead structure is also present, sag vertical curve length is not critical under daytime conditions when the driver can see beyond the sag vertical curve, or at night, when vehicle taillights and headlights make another vehicle on the road ahead visible in or beyond a sag vertical curve. 3. Lateral offset to obstruction is proposed to be removed from the list of controlling criteria because on rural roadways, the controlling criterion for shoulder width ensures that there will be at least 18 inches of lateral offset to roadside objects. Lateral offset is most relevant to urban and suburban roadways to ensure that mirrors or other appurtenances of heavy vehicles do not strike roadway objects and so that passengers in parked cars are able to open their doors. While these are important considerations, they do not rise to the same level of effect as other controlling criteria proposed to be retained. Controlling Criteria FHWA Proposes To Retain for Roadways on the NHS With a Design Speed Equal to or Greater Than 50 mph (80 km/h), Unless Otherwise Noted 1. Design speed is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion for all facilities on the NHS. Design speed is different from the other controlling criteria in that it establishes the range of design values for many of the other geometric elements of the highway. Because of its effect on a highway's design, the design speed is a fundamental and very important choice that a designer makes. In recognition of the wide range of site-specific conditions, constraints, and contexts that designers face, the design standards allow a great deal of design flexibility by providing ranges of values for design speed. For most cases, the ranges provide adequate flexibility for designers to choose an appropriate design speed without the need for a design exception. If a limited portion of an alignment must be designed to a lower speed, it is generally more appropriate to evaluate specific geometric element(s) and treat those as design exceptions, instead of evaluating an exception for the design speed of the roadway. 2. Lane width is an important design criterion with respect to crash frequency and traffic operations on high-speed and rural highways. The design standards provide the flexibility to choose lane widths as narrow as 10 feet on some facilities. 3. Shoulder width has substantial effect on crash frequency and on traffic speeds on rural highways. 4. Horizontal curve radius, previously called horizontal alignment, has a documented relationship to crash frequency on rural highways of all types. Curve radius also influences traffic operations on urban/ suburban arterials. Superelevation is the other main aspect of horizontal alignment and is being retained as independent controlling criterion. 5. Superelevation has a documented relationship to crash frequency on rural, two-lane highways and research suggests this would also be true on rural multilane highways and freeways. Superelevation is generally not provided on low-speed urban/suburban streets. 6. Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion because sufficiently long SSD is needed to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Research found that SSD less than specified by the design standards for crest vertical curve design, combined with a hidden feature such as a curve, intersection, or driveway, resulted in increased crashes on high speed roadways. Retention of SSD as a controlling criterion will ensure that deviations from this criterion are examined on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether site characteristics and crash history are indicative of potential areas needing attention. From an operational perspective, SSD generally does not affect operations on freeways under free-flow conditions. However, when freeways operate at near-capacity, limited SSD may further reduce capacity below the levels expected based on current predictive models. These impacts are typically examined during project development. 7. Maximum grade is proposed as a controlling criterion but minimum grade is not. The existing controlling criteria of `grade' includes both maximum and minimum grade. Maximum grade is proposed to be retained due to its relationship to crash frequency on rural, two-lane highways and the effect of steep grades on traffic operations on high- speed roadways. Minimum grade is proposed to be excluded because while it does influence roadway drainage, minimum grade alone does not ensure sufficient drainage and does not rise to the level of the controlling criteria. 8. Cross slope is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion to address drainage issues. While research has not been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between the normal cross slope of roadway pavements and crash frequency, our experience is that inadequate drainage could contribute to vehicle loss of control under some circumstances. Due to the relationship between cross slope and drainage, especially when combined with minimum grades, cross slope is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion. 9. Vertical clearance is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion. While vertical clearance does not affect operations on the roadway other than for those vehicles that are taller than the available vertical clearance allows, vertical clearance crashes can have severe impacts on operations by damaging overpasses and other structures, resulting in extended road closures. In addition, inadequate vertical clearance on Interstate freeways impacts military defense routes and requires additional coordination with the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency. [[Page 60735]] 10. Design Loading Structural Capacity is related to the strength and service limit state designs, not to traffic operations or the likelihood of traffic crashes. Previously called `structural capacity,' FHWA proposes to clarify that the applicable criterion covered herein relates to the design of the structure, not the load rating. Design loading structural capacity is important in maintaining a consistent minimum standard for safe load-carrying capacity and deviations from this criterion should be extremely rare. Design loading structural capacity is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion regardless of the design speed for the project. Exceptions to design loading structural capacity on the NHS could impact the mobility of freight, emergency and military vehicles, and the traveling public and requires additional coordination with the FHWA Office of Infrastructure. Design Documentation As codified in 23 CFR 625.3(f), and in accordance with the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A, exceptions may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not conform to the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications adopted in 23 CFR part 625. Under this proposal, formal design exceptions, subject to approval by FHWA, or on behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement, would be required for projects on the NHS only when the controlling criteria are not met. The FHWA expects documentation of design exceptions to include all of the following: Specific design criteria that will not be met. Existing roadway characteristics. Alternatives considered. Analysis of standard criteria versus proposed design criteria. [cir] Supporting quantitative analysis of expected operational and safety performance. [cir] Right-of-way impacts. [cir] Impacts to human and natural environment. [cir] Impacts to the community. [cir] Impacts on the needs of all users of the facility. [cir] Project cost. Proposed mitigation measures. Compatibility with adjacent sections of roadway. Possibility of a future project bringing this section into compliance with applicable standards. Design Speed and Design Loading Structural Capacity are fundamental criteria in the design of a project. Exceptions to these criteria should be extremely rare and FHWA expects the documentation to provide the following additional information. Design Speed exceptions must address: [cir] Length of section with reduced design speed compared to overall length of project. [cir] Measures used in transitions to adjacent sections with higher or lower design or operating speeds. Design Loading Structural Capacity exceptions must address: [cir] Verification of safe load-carrying capacity (load rating) for all State unrestricted legal loads or routine permit loads, and in the case of bridges on the Interstate, all Federal legal loads. The FHWA encourages agencies to document all design decisions to demonstrate compliance with accepted engineering principles and the reasons for the decision. Deviations from criteria contained in the standards for projects on the NHS, but which are not considered to be controlling criteria, should be documented by the STA in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, and safety standards. Deviations from criteria contained in standards adopted by a State for projects not on the NHS should be documented in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, and safety standards. States can determine their own level of documentation depending on their State laws and risk management practices. The proposed revisions to the controlling criteria and design documentation requirements will be published in final form after considering comments received regarding the proposed changes. The FHWA requests comments on the revised guidance memorandum, which is available in the docket (FHWA-2015-0020). The FHWA will respond to comments received on the guidance in a second Federal Register notice, to be published after the close of the comment period. That second notice will include the final guidance memorandum that reflects any changes implemented as a result of comments received. Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109 and 315; 23 CFR 1.32 and 625; 49 CFR 1.85. Issued on: September 30, 2015. Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. [FR Doc. 2015-25526 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
![60732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Notices
coated or plated with metal (HTS SUMMARY: The geometric design Federal Register published on April 11,
7408.29.10). See List II (Decision on standards for projects on the National 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages
Petitions to Grant Waiver of the Highway System (NHS) are incorporated 19477–78).
Competitive Need Limitation). by reference in FHWA regulations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Additionally, the President revoked These design standards are questions about the program discussed
existing CNL waivers for three products: comprehensive in nature, covering a herein, contact Elizabeth Hilton,
(1) Certain plywood sheets (HTS multitude of design characteristics, Geometric Design Engineer, FHWA
4412.31.40) from Indonesia; (2) certain while allowing flexibility in application. Office of Program Administration, (512)
copper, stranded wire (HTS 7413.00.10) Exceptions may be approved on a 536–5970 or via email at
from Turkey; and (3) certain copper project basis for designs that do not elizabeth.hilton@dot.gov. For legal
cables and plaited bands (HTS conform to the minimum or limiting questions, please contact Robert Black,
7413.00.50) from Turkey. See List III criteria set forth in the standards, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–
(Revocations of Competitive Need policies, and standard specifications. 1359, or via email at Robert.Black@
Limitation Waivers). The FHWA is updating its policy dot.gov. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
The President also redesignated regarding controlling criteria for design. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through
certain articles from GSP-eligible The current policy identifies 13 Friday, except Federal holidays.
countries that had previously exceeded controlling criteria for design and
the CNLs, but had fallen below the CNL SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
requires formal design exceptions when
for total annual trade in 2014. The any of the 13 controlling criteria are not Electronic Access and Filing
President redesignated as GSP-eligible: met. The FHWA intends to further
(1) Oilcake and other solid residues, You may submit or retrieve comments
streamline the controlling criteria, and online through the Federal eRulemaking
resulting from the extraction of the application of these criteria, based
vegetable fats or oils, of sunflower seeds portal at: http://www.regulations.gov.
on the results of recent research that The Web site is available 24 hours each
(HTS 2306.30.00) from Ukraine; (2) rare evaluated the safety and operational
gases, other than argon (HTS day, 365 days each year. Please follow
effects of the 13 controlling criteria. The the instructions. Electronic submission
2804.29.00) from Ukraine; (3) insulated FHWA also intends to clarify when
ignition wiring sets and other wiring and retrieval help and guidelines are
design exceptions are required and the available under the help section of the
sets of a kind used in vehicles, aircraft documentation that is expected to
or ships (HTS 8544.30.00) from Web site. An electronic copy of this
support such requests. This notice document may also be downloaded
Indonesia; and (4) parts of railway/ solicits comments on the proposed
tramway locomotives/rolling stock, from the Office of the Federal Register’s
revisions to the 13 controlling criteria home page at: http://www.archives.gov
axles (HTS 8607.19.03) from Ukraine. for the design of projects on the NHS
See List IV (Products Receiving GSP and the Government Printing Office’s
that require a design exception when Web page at: http://
Redesignation). adopted design criteria are not met, in
The President granted de minimis www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
accordance with FHWA regulations.
waivers to 98 articles that exceeded the DATES: Comments must be received on Purpose of This Notice
50-percent import-share CNL, but for or before December 7, 2015. Late
which the aggregate value of all U.S. The FHWA is requesting comment on
comments will be considered to the proposed revisions to the 13 controlling
imports of that article was below the extent practicable.
2014 de minimis level of $22 million. criteria for the design of projects on the
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver NHS that require a design exception
See List V (Products Receiving De
Minimis Waivers). The articles for comments to the U.S. Department of when not met, in accordance with 23
which de minimis waivers were granted Transportation, Dockets Management CFR 625.3(f). Design exceptions are an
will continue to be eligible for duty-free Facility, Room W12–140, 1200 New administrative tool used to document an
treatment under GSP when imported Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC engineer’s evaluation of possible
from the associated countries. 20590, or fax comments to (202) 493– solutions to a specific design issue,
2251. Alternatively, comments may be including the operational and safety
William D. Jackson, submitted to the Federal eRulemaking performance of each option, impacts to
Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All the human and natural environment,
for the Generalized System of Preferences and comments must include the docket and other factors, and demonstrating the
Chair of the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade number that appears in the heading of reasons a particular solution that does
Policy Staff Committee Office of the U.S. this document. All comments received not meet applicable design standards
Trade Representative. will be available for examination and was selected. Many States have their
[FR Doc. 2015–25548 Filed 10–6–15; 8:45 am] copying at the above address from 9 own process for reviewing design
BILLING CODE 3290–F6–P a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through deviations when State or Federal design
Friday, except Federal holidays. Those criteria are not met. When used in this
desiring notification of receipt of Notice, the term ‘design exception’
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comments must include a self- refers to documentation prepared for
addressed, stamped postcard or you projects on the NHS when a controlling
Federal Highway Administration may print the acknowledgment page criterion is not met, and that must be
that appears after submitting comments approved by the FHWA or on behalf of
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2015–0020]
electronically. Anyone is able to search FHWA if a State Transportation Agency
Revision of Thirteen Controlling the electronic form of all comments in (STA) has assumed this responsibility
Criteria for Design; Notice and Request any one of our dockets by the name of through a Stewardship and Oversight
for Comment the individual submitting the comment agreement. Stewardship and Oversight
AGENCY: Federal Highway (or signing the comment, if submitted agreements set forth the agreement
Administration (FHWA), DOT. on behalf of an association, business, or between FHWA and each STA on the
labor union). Anyone may review DOT’s roles and responsibilities of FHWA and
ACTION: Notice; request for comment.
complete Privacy Act Statement in the the STA with respect to Title 23 project
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_60926/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Notices 60733
approvals and related responsibilities distance, cross slope, vertical clearance, proposes to eliminate the following
and oversight activities. The FHWA also horizontal clearance, and structural controlling criteria:
intends to clarify when design capacity. The term ‘horizontal • Bridge Width.
exceptions are required and the clearance’ was initially interpreted as • Vertical Alignment.
documentation that is expected to the ‘clear zone’ described in the • Lateral Offset to Obstruction.
support such requests. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide To improve clarity, FHWA proposes
Comments received through this (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/ to rename the following existing
Notice will be considered by FHWA standards/850415.cfm), but in the early controlling criteria:
when revising the controlling criteria for 1990s was clarified to mean ‘lateral • Horizontal Alignment to be
the design of projects on the NHS, as offset to obstruction’ as described in the renamed Horizontal Curve Radius.
well as design exception documentation • Grade to be renamed Maximum
AASHTO geometric design policies
and application. Grade.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/ • Structural Capacity to be renamed
Background standards/930525.cfm). Recent research, Design Loading Structural Capacity.
culminating in publications of the most The resulting controlling criteria for
As codified in 23 CFR 625.3 and recent Highway Capacity Manual (2010,
625.4, the geometric design standards design are proposed as follows:
for projects on the NHS are A Policy on
Transportation Research Board) and the • Design Speed.
Highway Safety Manual (2010, • Lane Width.
Geometric Design of Highways and AASHTO), developed much greater • Shoulder Width.
Streets (2001) and A Policy on Design knowledge of the traffic operational and • Horizontal Curve Radius.
Standards Interstate System (2005), safety effects of the controlling criteria • Superelevation.
published by the American Association than was available when they were • Stopping Sight Distance.
of State Highway and Transportation established. The NCHRP Report 783 • Maximum Grade.
Officials (AASHTO). Rulemaking is
‘‘Evaluation of the 13 Controlling • Cross Slope.
underway to adopt the current (2011)
Criteria for Geometric Design’’ (2014) • Vertical Clearance.
edition of A Policy on Geometric Design • Design Loading Structural Capacity.
specifically examined the safety and The FHWA also proposes a revision to
of Highways and Streets. These design
operational effects of the existing the application of the controlling
standards are comprehensive in nature,
controlling criteria. criteria. Most controlling criteria would
covering a multitude of design
characteristics, while allowing The PBPD is an approach to apply only to high-speed [design speed
flexibility in application. As codified in decisionmaking that encourages ≥50 mph (80 km/h)] roadways. Only
23 CFR 625.3(f), and in accordance with engineered solutions rather than relying design loading structural capacity and
the delegated authority provided by on minimum, maximum, or limiting design speed would continue to be
FHWA Order M1100.1A, exceptions values found in design criteria. The applied to all NHS facility types.
may be approved on a project basis for PBPD is grounded in an analytic Research indicates that the current
designs that do not conform to the framework that enables transportation controlling criteria are less influential
minimum or limiting criteria set forth in agencies to utilize existing design on the traffic operational and safety
the standards, policies, and standard flexibility and analytical tools in a way performance of low-speed urban and
specifications adopted in 23 CFR part that maximizes benefits while suburban arterials than other features
625. minimizing costs. The PBPD does not such as intersection design and access
The FHWA issued a policy disregard engineering guidance or management strategies. Therefore,
memorandum on April 15, 1985, standards. Rather, flexibility in design consistent with FHWA’s risk-based
available on the docket for this notice, typically requires more information and approach to stewardship and oversight,
and on FHWA’s Web site at http:// a higher level of analysis when defining FHWA intends to focus application of
www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/ and deciding on the most appropriate the controlling criteria on high-speed
850415.cfm, which identified 13 criteria design value for a particular location. NHS roadways [design speed ≥ 50 mph
contained in A Policy on Geometric Consistent with FHWA’s efforts (80 km/h)]. On low-speed NHS
Design of Highways and Streets and regarding PBPD and to ensure that roadways [design speed <50 mph (80
designated them as controlling criteria. design exceptions are only required for km/h)], design exceptions are proposed
The policy required formal design criteria with significant safety or to only be required by FHWA for
exceptions when any of the 13 operational effects, FHWA intends to deviations from the design speed or
controlling criteria were not met. streamline the controlling criteria based design loading structural capacity
The FHWA proposes to streamline the on the findings of recent research. Since criteria. Exceptions to the controlling
13 controlling criteria to refine the focus 1985, the controlling criteria have been criteria must be carefully evaluated and
on criteria with the greatest impact on applied to all projects, regardless of approved by FHWA or on behalf of
road safety and operation. This roadway type or context. The NCHRP FHWA if an STA has assumed the
streamlined application of the Report 783 found that the 13 controlling responsibility through a Stewardship
controlling criteria is consistent with criteria had minimal influence on the and Oversight agreement.
the industry’s move toward a modified safety or operations on urban streets. On While all of the criteria contained in
design approach, often referred to as rural roadways, freeways, and high- the adopted standards are important
performance based practical design speed urban/suburban roadways, a design considerations, they do not all
(PBPD), and will reduce the instances stronger connection to safety and affect the safety and operations of a
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
when a design exception must be operations was found for some of the roadway to the same degree, and
prepared when applicable design criteria than for others. therefore should not require the same
standards are not met for projects on the level of administrative control. Based on
Proposed Revisions to Controlling
NHS. The controlling design criteria set the findings of recent research and
Criteria
forth in 1985 are: Design speed, lane FHWA’s assessment and experience, a
width, shoulder width, bridge width, Based on the findings of NCHRP brief discussion on each of the proposed
horizontal alignment, superelevation, Report 783 and FHWA’s own changes to the controlling criteria is
vertical alignment, grade, stopping sight assessment and experience, FHWA provided below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_60926/page/2.svg)
![60734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Notices
Controlling Criteria FHWA Proposes To Controlling Criteria FHWA Proposes To specified by the design standards for
Eliminate Retain for Roadways on the NHS With crest vertical curve design, combined
a Design Speed Equal to or Greater Than with a hidden feature such as a curve,
1. Bridge width is proposed to be 50 mph (80 km/h), Unless Otherwise intersection, or driveway, resulted in
removed from the list of controlling Noted increased crashes on high speed
criteria because research found little roadways. Retention of SSD as a
1. Design speed is proposed to be
relationship between bridge width and controlling criterion will ensure that
retained as a controlling criterion for all
crash frequency on rural, two-lane deviations from this criterion are
facilities on the NHS. Design speed is
highways and surmised the same would examined on a case-by-case basis, to
different from the other controlling
be true for other roadway types. Lane determine whether site characteristics
criteria in that it establishes the range of
and shoulder width criteria apply to and crash history are indicative of
design values for many of the other
roadways and bridges, so any deficiency potential areas needing attention. From
geometric elements of the highway.
in bridge width will require design an operational perspective, SSD
Because of its effect on a highway’s
exception documentation if the lane or generally does not affect operations on
design, the design speed is a
shoulder width criteria is not met under freeways under free-flow conditions.
fundamental and very important choice
this proposal. Design criteria allow However, when freeways operate at
that a designer makes. In recognition of
lesser shoulder width, and therefore near-capacity, limited SSD may further
the wide range of site-specific
lesser bridge widths, on long bridges reduce capacity below the levels
conditions, constraints, and contexts
[overall length over 200 feet (60 m)]. If expected based on current predictive
that designers face, the design standards models. These impacts are typically
the minimum lane or shoulder widths allow a great deal of design flexibility by
are not provided on a long bridge, the examined during project development.
providing ranges of values for design 7. Maximum grade is proposed as a
deviation would be documented as a speed. For most cases, the ranges
lane or shoulder width design exception controlling criterion but minimum grade
provide adequate flexibility for is not. The existing controlling criteria
under the proposed revisions to designers to choose an appropriate of ‘grade’ includes both maximum and
controlling criteria. design speed without the need for a minimum grade. Maximum grade is
2. Vertical alignment is proposed to design exception. If a limited portion of proposed to be retained due to its
be removed from the list of controlling an alignment must be designed to a relationship to crash frequency on rural,
criteria. Three of the existing criteria lower speed, it is generally more two-lane highways and the effect of
relate to vertical alignment. Crest appropriate to evaluate specific steep grades on traffic operations on
vertical curve design is covered under geometric element(s) and treat those as high-speed roadways. Minimum grade
the stopping sight distance criterion. design exceptions, instead of evaluating is proposed to be excluded because
Grade is explicitly covered as a separate an exception for the design speed of the while it does influence roadway
criterion, leaving only sag vertical curve roadway. drainage, minimum grade alone does
length to be covered under the vertical 2. Lane width is an important design not ensure sufficient drainage and does
alignment criterion. While research has criterion with respect to crash frequency not rise to the level of the controlling
confirmed the interrelationship between and traffic operations on high-speed and criteria.
vehicle headlight illuminations, sag rural highways. The design standards 8. Cross slope is proposed to be
vertical curves, and sight distance to provide the flexibility to choose lane retained as a controlling criterion to
features in the roadway, no relationship widths as narrow as 10 feet on some address drainage issues. While research
has extended to the effect of these facilities. has not been conducted to determine
combined elements on crashes. 3. Shoulder width has substantial whether there is a relationship between
Furthermore, except when a horizontal effect on crash frequency and on traffic the normal cross slope of roadway
curve or overhead structure is also speeds on rural highways. pavements and crash frequency, our
present, sag vertical curve length is not 4. Horizontal curve radius, previously experience is that inadequate drainage
critical under daytime conditions when called horizontal alignment, has a could contribute to vehicle loss of
the driver can see beyond the sag documented relationship to crash control under some circumstances. Due
vertical curve, or at night, when vehicle frequency on rural highways of all to the relationship between cross slope
taillights and headlights make another types. Curve radius also influences and drainage, especially when
traffic operations on urban/suburban combined with minimum grades, cross
vehicle on the road ahead visible in or
arterials. Superelevation is the other slope is proposed to be retained as a
beyond a sag vertical curve.
main aspect of horizontal alignment and controlling criterion.
3. Lateral offset to obstruction is is being retained as independent 9. Vertical clearance is proposed to be
proposed to be removed from the list of controlling criterion. retained as a controlling criterion. While
controlling criteria because on rural 5. Superelevation has a documented vertical clearance does not affect
roadways, the controlling criterion for relationship to crash frequency on rural, operations on the roadway other than
shoulder width ensures that there will two-lane highways and research for those vehicles that are taller than the
be at least 18 inches of lateral offset to suggests this would also be true on rural available vertical clearance allows,
roadside objects. Lateral offset is most multilane highways and freeways. vertical clearance crashes can have
relevant to urban and suburban Superelevation is generally not severe impacts on operations by
roadways to ensure that mirrors or other provided on low-speed urban/suburban damaging overpasses and other
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
appurtenances of heavy vehicles do not streets. structures, resulting in extended road
strike roadway objects and so that 6. Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is closures. In addition, inadequate
passengers in parked cars are able to proposed to be retained as a controlling vertical clearance on Interstate freeways
open their doors. While these are criterion because sufficiently long SSD impacts military defense routes and
important considerations, they do not is needed to enable a vehicle traveling requires additional coordination with
rise to the same level of effect as other at or near the design speed to stop the Surface Deployment and
controlling criteria proposed to be before reaching a stationary object in its Distribution Command Transportation
retained. path. Research found that SSD less than Engineering Agency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_60926/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Notices 60735
10. Design Loading Structural criteria in the design of a project. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Capacity is related to the strength and Exceptions to these criteria should be
service limit state designs, not to traffic extremely rare and FHWA expects the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
operations or the likelihood of traffic documentation to provide the following Administration
crashes. Previously called ‘structural additional information. [Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0105]
capacity,’ FHWA proposes to clarify that • Design Speed exceptions must
the applicable criterion covered herein address: Qualification of Drivers; Application for
relates to the design of the structure, not Æ Length of section with reduced Exemptions; Hearing
the load rating. Design loading design speed compared to overall length
structural capacity is important in AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
of project. Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
maintaining a consistent minimum
Æ Measures used in transitions to ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
standard for safe load-carrying capacity
adjacent sections with higher or lower
and deviations from this criterion
design or operating speeds. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its
should be extremely rare. Design
loading structural capacity is proposed • Design Loading Structural Capacity decision to grant requests from 10
to be retained as a controlling criterion exceptions must address: individuals for exemptions from the
regardless of the design speed for the Æ Verification of safe load-carrying Agency’s physical qualifications
project. Exceptions to design loading capacity (load rating) for all State standard concerning hearing for
structural capacity on the NHS could unrestricted legal loads or routine interstate drivers. The current regulation
impact the mobility of freight, permit loads, and in the case of bridges prohibits hearing impaired individuals
emergency and military vehicles, and on the Interstate, all Federal legal loads. from operating CMVs in interstate
the traveling public and requires The FHWA encourages agencies to commerce. After notice and opportunity
additional coordination with the FHWA document all design decisions to for public comment, the Agency
Office of Infrastructure. demonstrate compliance with accepted concluded that granting exemptions for
engineering principles and the reasons these drivers to operate property-
Design Documentation carrying CMVs will provide a level of
for the decision. Deviations from criteria
As codified in 23 CFR 625.3(f), and in contained in the standards for projects safety that is equivalent to or greater
accordance with the delegated authority on the NHS, but which are not than the level of safety maintained
provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A, considered to be controlling criteria, without the exemptions. The
exceptions may be approved on a should be documented by the STA in exemptions are valid for a 2-year period
project basis for designs that do not accordance with State laws, regulations, and may be renewed, and the
conform to the minimum or limiting directives, and safety standards. exemptions preempt State laws and
criteria set forth in the standards, Deviations from criteria contained in regulations.
policies, and standard specifications standards adopted by a State for projects DATES: The exemptions are effective
adopted in 23 CFR part 625. Under this not on the NHS should be documented October 7, 2015. The exemptions expire
proposal, formal design exceptions, in accordance with State laws, on October 10, 2017.
subject to approval by FHWA, or on regulations, directives, and safety FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed standards. States can determine their Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of
the responsibility through a own level of documentation depending Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202)
Stewardship and Oversight agreement, on their State laws and risk management 366–4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov,
would be required for projects on the practices. FMCSA, Department of Transportation,
NHS only when the controlling criteria The proposed revisions to the 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
are not met. The FHWA expects controlling criteria and design W64–224, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
documentation of design exceptions to documentation requirements will be Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
include all of the following: published in final form after considering Monday through Friday, except Federal
• Specific design criteria that will not comments received regarding the holidays.
be met. proposed changes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
• Existing roadway characteristics.
• Alternatives considered. The FHWA requests comments on the
A. Electronic Access
• Analysis of standard criteria versus revised guidance memorandum, which
proposed design criteria. is available in the docket (FHWA–2015– You may see all the comments online
Æ Supporting quantitative analysis of 0020). The FHWA will respond to through the Federal Document
expected operational and safety comments received on the guidance in Management System (FDMS) at:
performance. a second Federal Register notice, to be www.regulations.gov.
Æ Right-of-way impacts. published after the close of the Docket: For access to the docket to
Æ Impacts to human and natural comment period. That second notice read background documents or
environment. will include the final guidance comments, go to www.regulations.gov
Æ Impacts to the community. memorandum that reflects any changes and/or Room W12–140 on the ground
Æ Impacts on the needs of all users of implemented as a result of comments level of the West Building, 1200 New
the facility. received. Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Æ Project cost. Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109 and 315; 23 CFR
• Proposed mitigation measures. 1.32 and 625; 49 CFR 1.85. through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Compatibility with adjacent Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
sections of roadway. Issued on: September 30, 2015. U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
• Possibility of a future project Gregory G. Nadeau, from the public to better inform its
bringing this section into compliance Administrator, Federal Highway rulemaking process. DOT posts these
with applicable standards. Administration. comments, without edit, including any
Design Speed and Design Loading [FR Doc. 2015–25526 Filed 10–6–15; 8:45 am] personal information the commenter
Structural Capacity are fundamental BILLING CODE 4910–22–P provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_60926/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 08:48:44
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 08:48:44
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; request for comment. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. | |
| Contact | For questions about the program discussed herein, contact Elizabeth Hilton, Geometric Design Engineer, FHWA Office of Program Administration, (512) 536-5970 or via email at [email protected] For legal questions, please contact Robert Black, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1359, or via email at [email protected] Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 60732 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR