I don't find a 90 ksi yield steel between those listed as permitted in ASD. Hence, I would say this steel is outside the LEGAL scope of applicability of ASD.
Other thing if the use of ASD as a technical resource, in absence of any other known to be more accurate makes sense. It is clear that for some technical aspects, the use must not be leading to the level of safey ASD wants warranted, or at least it sees it not being warranted for such steels. But in the absence of individualized expression of such, one can't but guess.
The first things that come to mind are if reserve strength beyond yield and elongation from yield to final rupture do not influence negatively the use of ASD in order to attain the implied targeted (by ASD) level of safety. As much as this, and respect fire risks, whether the high strength mechanical properties degrade in akin way to the steels accepted in ASD or has some sudden loss of strength, due to constitutive changes in the chemistry of the steel under fire.
Hence one may not be reassured is doing the right thing applying ASD to a steel not listed in such code. Even in the availability of accurate description of the mechanical properties etc by say a provider of the steel, one can't be reliant on that the suggested procedures attain the same safety and serviceability standards than using the proper steel and code, because the single source simply lacks the industry consensus meant by codes of general application, where the surmised peer review of what proposed is superior.
