(a) Applicable standards. (1) Design and construction standards for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the NHS shall be those approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the State DOTs. These standards must consider, in addition to the criteria described in § 625.2(a), the following:
(i) The constructed and natural environment of the area;
(ii) The environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts of the activity;
(iii) Cost savings by utilizing flexibility that exists in current design guidance and regulations; and
(iv) Access for other modes of transportation.
(2) Federal-aid projects not on the NHS are to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards, and construction standards.
(3) Interstate highways located in Alaska and Puerto Rico shall be designed in accordance with such geometric and construction standards as are adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the needs of the locality of the highway.
(4) A State may allow a local jurisdiction to design a project using a roadway design publication that is different from the roadway design publication used by the State in which the local jurisdiction resides if—
(i) The local jurisdiction is a direct recipient of Federal funds for the project;
(ii) The roadway design publication is adopted by the local jurisdiction and recognized by FHWA;
(iii) The design complies with all applicable Federal laws and regulations; and
(iv) The project is located on a roadway that is owned by the local jurisdiction and is not part of the Interstate System.
(b) Deviations from specific minimum values on the NHS. The standards, policies, and standard specifications cited in § 625.4 of this part contain specific criteria and controls for the design of NHS projects. Deviations from specific minimum values therein are to be handled in accordance with procedures in paragraph (f) of this section. If there is a conflict between criteria in the documents enumerated in § 625.4 of this part, the latest listed standard, policy, or standard specification will govern.
(c) Application of other FHWA regulations. Application of FHWA regulations, although cited in § 625.4 of this part as standards, policies, and standard specifications, shall be as set forth therein.
(d) Funding source. This regulation establishes Federal standards for work on the NHS regardless of funding source.
(e) Very minor or no roadway work. The Division Administrator shall determine the applicability of the roadway geometric design standards to traffic engineering, safety, and preventive maintenance projects which include very minor or no roadway work. Formal findings of applicability are expected only as needed to resolve controversies.
(f) Exceptions—(1) Project exception. (i) Approval within the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given on a project basis to designs on the NHS which do not conform to the minimum criteria as set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications for:
(A) Experimental features on projects; and
(B) Projects where conditions warrant that exceptions be made.
(ii) The determination to approve a project design that does not conform to the minimum criteria is to be made only after due consideration is given to all project conditions such as maximum service and safety benefits for the dollar invested, compatibility with adjacent sections of roadway and the probable time before reconstruction of the section due to increased traffic demands or changed conditions.
(2) Programmatic exception. Approval within the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given, on a programmatic basis, to use a more recent edition of any standard or specification incorporated by reference under § 625.4(d).
[62 FR 15397, Apr. 1, 1997, as amended at 87 FR 41, Jan. 3, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Taubman Realty Grp. Ltd. P'ship v. Mineta, 198 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Va. 2002).
· cites it 6× “” 14 Lawton’s letter continues by noting that Broad Street is not on the National Highway System and that, pursuant to 23 C.F.R. § 625.3 (2), “the facility is to be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with state laws .”
Miller v. United States, 710 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 5× “23 C.F.R. § 625.3 (b)(1), (c)(6) (1975). The more specific standards and specifications adopted list the AASHO’s, Geometric Design Standards for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (1967) and the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic…”
Michael J. Rothrock & Edelle Rothrock v. United States, 62 F.3d 196 (7th Cir. 1995).
“” 23 C.F.R. § 625.3 (f)(1)(h) and (2). Thus, in deciding whether to fund Indiana’s bridge resurfacing project despite the alleged nonconformance with certain AASHTO standards, the FHWA is charged with balancing a mix of factors such as cost and safety.”
Carney v. Dep't of Transp., 378 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“23 CFR 625.3(20), I-C (emphasis in original): "* * * It is recognized that limited budgets may preclude the full implementation of these guidelines.”
Farmland Pres. Ass'n v. Adams, 491 F. Supp. 601 (N.D. Iowa 1979).
· cites it 3× “§ 109 (b); 23 CFR § 625.3 (a)(3). Eight alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, were discussed in the EIS.”
Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1984).
“18 The conclusion *1454 that the ramp configuration, or the rest of the Makai Realignment for that matter, is not per se unsafe is further supported by the fact that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Makai Realignment in any way fails to meet the minimum…”
Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 372 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“g„ 23 C.F.R. §§ 625.3 (d), 625.4(c)(3), it fails to describe the specific processes by which the FHWA was required to perform such verification.”
Farmland Pres. Ass'n v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 233 (8th Cir. 1979).
“§ 109 (b) and 23 CFR § 625.3 (a)(3), which in turn refers to a publication issued by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHO) in 1969 entitled “A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System.”
City of Alexandria v. Fed. High. Admin., 756 F.2d 1014 (4th Cir. 1985).
“The environmental regulations themselves do not define access control, but FHWA’s general definitions adopt the industry definition promulgated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, see 23 C.F.R. § 625.3 (a)(2), (e)(1), and that definition…”
Lyons v. Granite Constr. Co. Inc (N.D. Ala. 2021).
“Additionally, the PoDI provides “a general description of the elements that will be reviewed”: Plan-in hand and PS&E inspections meetings Approval of exceptions to design standards (23 CFR 625.3(f)) Approve addenda during advertising period (23 CFR 635.”
Hammell v. Granite Constr. Co. Inc (N.D. Ala. 2021).
“Additionally, the PoDI provides “a general description of the elements that will be reviewed”: Plan-in hand and PS&E inspections meetings Approval of exceptions to design standards (23 CFR 625.3(f)) Approve addenda during advertising period (23 CFR 635.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 625.3(20) — 1 case
Carney v. Dep't of Transp., 378 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“23 CFR 625.3(20), I-C (emphasis in original): "* * * It is recognized that limited budgets may preclude the full implementation of these guidelines.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 625.3(f) — 2 cases
Lyons v. Granite Constr. Co. Inc (N.D. Ala. 2021).
“Additionally, the PoDI provides “a general description of the elements that will be reviewed”: Plan-in hand and PS&E inspections meetings Approval of exceptions to design standards (23 CFR 625.3(f)) Approve addenda during advertising period (23 CFR 635.”
Hammell v. Granite Constr. Co. Inc (N.D. Ala. 2021).
“Additionally, the PoDI provides “a general description of the elements that will be reviewed”: Plan-in hand and PS&E inspections meetings Approval of exceptions to design standards (23 CFR 625.3(f)) Approve addenda during advertising period (23 CFR 635.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.