Superpave specifications address binder properties that may lead to rutting, transverse cracking, and fatigue damage with varying degrees of success. However, asphalt binder production and formulation has significantly changed and introduced much more variability in terms of quality since the development of Superpave Performance-Grade system because of economic, technical, and environmental reasons. Consequently, aged-induced surface distresses under combined thermal and traffic loading have become the main challenge for highway agencies. Thermally induced surface deterioration appears in the form of traditional transverse cracking, block cracking, and raveling, or accelerating damage at construction joints. This study evaluated the limitations of the proposed linear viscoelastic (LVE) rheological cracking surrogates, such as ΔTc, R-value, and G-R parameters, and the ability of the Asphalt Binder Cracking Device (ABCD) failure test to overcome these limitations. ABCD is particularly appropriate to rank binder performance because the measured cracking temperature (Tcr) encompasses binder LVE properties, failure strength, coefficient of thermal contraction, and cooling rate. The proposed parameter (ΔTf = Tc (S=300 MPa) from BBR - Tcr from ABCD) relates the failure temperature to the equi-stiffness temperature and gives credit to well-formulated and compatible polymer-modified binders expected to increase binder strength and strain tolerance. This paper proposes a specification framework based on both ΔTc and ΔTf, universally applicable, regardless of binder composition. Additionally, preliminary specification limits are proposed based on the analysis of 44 binders, 15 with corresponding field performance data. Obviously as confirmed by a recent stakeholder workshop and industry feedbacks, these preliminary specification limits need further validation and possible adjustments to account for regional experience and local challenges. Current efforts at FHWA TFHRC, in collaboration with various State Highway Agencies (SHA’s), are focused to further validate the framework and specification limits.