Federal Register, Volume 64 Issue 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7229-7233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-4743]

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; Project
Selection/Fund Allocation for the Indian Reservation Bridge Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Section 1115 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century establishes a nationwide priority program for improving
deficient Indian reservation road (IRR) bridges and reserves $13
million of IRR funds per year to replace and rehabilitate bridges that
are in poor condition. The FHWA, Federal Lands Highway Office (FLHO),
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Transportation (BIADOT),
intend to implement the IRR bridge program (IRRBP) to promptly address
the deficient IRR bridges. Toward that end, the FLHO and the BIADOT, in
consultation with Indian tribal governments, will develop project
selection/fund allocation procedures for uniform application of the
legislation. The FHWA is announcing its intention to solicit comments
on project selection/fund allocation procedures for the IRRBP in
written format and through informal consultation with Indian tribal
governments and other interested parties. After a series of informal
consultation sessions and following review of written comments filed in
response to this notice, the FHWA will develop project selection/fund
allocation procedures.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Your signed, written comments must refer to the docket
number appearing at the top of this document and you must submit your
comments to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments will be
available for examination at the above address between 9 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: Mr. Wade F. Casey, Federal Lands
Highway Office, HFL-20, (202) 366-9486; or Ms. Grace Reidy, Office of
Chief Counsel, HCC-32, (202) 366-6226; Federal Highway Administration,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours are from
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a
modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://
www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

In order to implement the IRRBP established in section 1115 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub. L. 105-
178, 112 Stat 107, to be codified at 23 U.S.C. 202(d)(4)(A), and in
order to promptly address the deficient IRR bridges, project selection/
fund allocation procedures will be developed. The FHWA is soliciting
comments in writing and at a series of informal consultation sessions
with Indian tribal governments and other interested parties to develop
procedures for this program. Both written and oral comments will be
considered and included in the docket. Following consultation and the
review of written comments, the FHWA intends to develop through
appropriate administrative processes project selection/fund allocation
procedures by which to operate the IRRBP.
Statutory Provisions: Section 1115 of TEA-21, amended title 23,
U.S.C., to require the Secretary to establish a nationwide priority
program for improving deficient IRR bridges. Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated for IRRs for each fiscal year 1998 through 2003,
section 1115 requires the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary
of the Interior, to reserve not less than $13 million for projects to
replace, rehabilitate, seismically retrofit, paint, apply calcium
magnesium acetate to, apply sodium acetate/formate or other
environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-icing and de-icing
compositions, or install scour countermeasures for deficient IRR
bridges, including multiple-pipe culverts.
The statute provides that, to be eligible to receive funding under
the Nationwide Priority Bridge Program, a bridge must: (i) have an
opening of 20 feet or more; (ii) be on an IRR; (iii) be unsafe because
of structural deficiencies, physical deterioration, or functional
obsolescence; and (iv) be recorded in the national bridge inventory
(NBI) administered by the Secretary under 23 U.S.C. 144 (b). The
statute further provides that the funds to carry out IRR bridge
projects shall be made available only on approval of

[[Page 7230]]

plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) by the Secretary.
The following information highlights the statutory provisions that
define the IRRBP and presents various FHWA preliminary recommendations
and alternative procedures for program administration and funds
distribution for the consideration of parties wishing to participate in
the consultation sessions or desiring to file written comments. We
emphasize that the project eligibility criteria and alternative funding
procedures set forth in this notice for IRRBP administration are
presented only as suggestions to assist interested parties in
formulating their own comments and recommendations. We encourage
parties to submit and we commit to actively consider additional
alternatives for the IRRBP administration, as well as variations on the
alternative funding procedures identified in this notice.

Issues Concerning Funding Availability and Project Eligibility

1. What is the total funding available for the IRR bridge program?

The statute provides a total program funding of not less than $13
million for each FY 1998-2003.

2. When will these funds become available?

These funds become available on October 1 of each fiscal year for
each fiscal year 1998-2003.

3. When does an eligible project receive funding?

The statue provides that these funds are provided after the
Secretary of Transportation approves a completed PS&E.

4. How long will these funds be available?

The statue provides that the funds for each fiscal year are
available for the year authorized plus three years (a total of four
years).

5. What can these IRR bridge funds be used for?

The statute provides that these funds can be used to replace,
rehabilitate, seismically retrofit, paint, apply calcium magnesium
acetate to, apply sodium acetate/formate or other environmentally
acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-icing and deicing compositions, or
install scour countermeasures for deficient IRR bridges.

6. Which bridges are eligible?

The statute provides that to be eligible to receive funding, a
bridge must: (i) have an opening of 20 feet or more; (ii) be on an IRR;
(iii) be unsafe because of structural deficiencies, physical
deterioration or functional obsolescence; and (iv) be recorded in the
NBI maintained by the FHWA. In view of the limited availability of
funds, and under 23 U.S.C. 204(a)'s recognition of the need for all
Federal roads to be treated under uniform policies that apply to
Federal-aid highways, the FHWA invites comment on the advisability of
including in IRRBP procedures a provision that, if a bridge has been
rehabilitated or replaced in the last 10 years, its eligibility would
be limited to seismic retrofit or installation of scour
countermeasures.

7. When is a bridge eligible for replacement?

Given under 23 U.S.C. 204(a)'s recognition of the need for all
Federal roads to be treated under uniform policies that apply to
Federal-aid highways, the FHWA recommends preliminarily that IRRBP
procedures should provide that, to be eligible for replacement, the
bridge must be considered deficient for reasons of structural
deficiency or functional obsolescence. We further recommend that any
procedures developed for program administration should provide that the
bridge also must have an NBI sufficiency rating of less than 50 to be
eligible for replacement. We invite commenters specifically to address
these issues.

8. When is a bridge eligible for rehabilitation?

For reasons corresponding to those addressed in item 7 concerning
replacement eligibility, the FHWA invites comment on the advisability
of including in the IRRBP procedures a provision that, to be eligible
for rehabilitation, a bridge must be considered deficient for reasons
of structural deficiency or functional obsolescence. We further
recommend that program administration procedures should provide that a
bridge also must have an NBI sufficiency rating of less than or equal
to 80 to be eligible for rehabilitation. Finally, we invite comments on
the advisability of stipulating in any IRRBP procedures that a bridge
would be eligible for replacement if the total life cycle cost for
bridge rehabilitation exceeds the costs to replace.

9. How does ownership impact project selection?

Since the Federal government has both a trust responsibility and
owns the BIA bridges on Indian reservations, the FHWA recommends
preliminarily and invites comment on the view that, under any IRRBP
procedures developed, primary consideration would be given to funding
construction projects for deficient BIA owned IRR bridges. We emphasize
that consideration could also be given to the funding of construction
projects for the deficient non-BIA, IRR bridges. States and counties
have at their disposal other revenue sources to use to rehabilitate and
replace non-BIA IRR bridges. Specifically States and counties have
access to the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program
(HBRRP) funds previously provided under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240, 105
Stat. 1914, and continued under the TEA-21 for rehabilitation and
replacement of their deficient non-BIA owned IRR bridges.

10. Do IRRBP projects have to be on a transportation improvement
program (TIP)?

Yes. All IRRBP projects have to be listed on an approved TIP. Under
23 U.S.C. 204 (j), IRR bridges must appear on the BIA's IRRBP TIP and
be forwarded to the State.

11. What percent of the contract authority in any fiscal year is
available for use on BIA owned bridges and non-BIA owned IRR bridges?

Based on the ownership issues previously discussed in item 9
emphasizing the need to reduce the number of deficient BIA owned IRR
bridges, the FHWA invites comment on the advisability of including in
the IRRBP procedures a provision that up to 80 percent ($10.4 million)
of contract authority in any fiscal year would be available for use on
BIA owned IRR bridges. This would leave 20 percent ($2.6 million) of
contract authority in any fiscal year that would be available for use
on non-BIA owned IRR bridges. Under this approach, by April 30 of each
year, any excess funds beyond those required for non-BIA owned bridges
would be made available for deficient BIA owned bridges.

12. What percent of a specific project's construction costs is covered
under this program?

The FHWA invites comment on the advisability of including within
any procedures adopted for administering the IRRBP the following
funding provisions: (i) Up to 100 percent contract authority would be
provided for a BIA owned IRR bridge; (ii) Up to 80 percent of the
contract authority would be provided for a State, county,

[[Page 7231]]

or locally owned non-BIA IRR bridge; (iii) States, counties, local and
tribal governments would be required to provide at least 20 percent of
the funds for non-BIA IRR bridges; (iv) The contract authority ceiling
for any single non-BIA IRR bridge project would be $1.5 million.

13. When are IRR bridge projects eligible for funding?

Section 1115 provides that IRR funds to carry out IRRBP projects
shall be made available only on approval of PS&E by the Secretary.
Approval consists of having completed and approved bridge design,
specifications and estimates. The FHWA invites comment on including
within any IRRBP procedures the following provisions concerning timing
of project eligibility. The project must be ready for construction,
right of way must have been acquired, and the project must be awarded
within 120 calendar days of funding. A copy of the FHWA Division Office
PS&E approval letter, control schedule and certification checklist must
be forwarded by the area office to the BIADOT/FLHO for review and
acceptance. Submittal of an incomplete application package would form
the basis for project disapproval and the BIA area office would have to
revise and resubmit the package.

14. What does a complete application package consist of?

The FHWA invites comment on the advisability of including within
any IRRBP procedures the following provisions concerning contents of
the application package. A complete application package would consist
of the following: the FHWA Division Office PS&E approval letter,
control schedule and certification checklist.

15. How are the FY 1998 projects to be treated?

The FHWA invites comment on the advisability of including within
any IRRBP procedures the following provision concerning funding of FY
1998 projects. In order not to penalize any BIA area office which
completed PS&E packages in FY 1998 that were not funded because the
project selection/fund allocation procedures for distribution of funds
for FY 1998 were not in place, the funds for approved projects would be
made available to the BIA area offices on receipt and acceptance of
their application packages.

16. How is a list of deficient bridges to be generated?

The FHWA invites comment on the advisability of including within
any IRRBP procedures the following methodology for generating a list of
deficient IRR bridges. A list of deficient BIA IRR bridges would be
developed each fiscal year by the FHWA based on the annual April update
of the NBI. The NBI is based on data from the inspection of IRR
bridges. Likewise, a list of non-BIA IRR bridges would be obtained from
the NBI. These lists would form the basis for identifying bridges that
would be considered potentially eligible for participation in the
IRRBP. Two separate master bridge lists (one each for BIA and non-BIA
IRR bridges) would be developed and would include, at a minimum, the
following: (i) sufficiency rating; (ii) status (structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete); (iii) average daily traffic (NBI item 29);
(iv) detour length (NBI item 19); and (v) truck average daily traffic
(NBI item 109). These lists would be provided by the FHWA to the BIADOT
for publication and notification of affected BIA area offices, Indian
tribal governments, and State and local governments.
The FHWA further recommends and invites comment on the view that,
the Indian tribal governments in consultation with the BIA area offices
prioritize the design for bridges that are structurally deficient over
bridges that are simply functionally obsolete, since the former is more
critical structurally than the latter. Bridges that have higher average
daily traffic (ADT) should be considered before those that have lower
ADT. Detour length should also be a factor in selection and submittal
of bridges, with those having a higher detour length being of greater
concern. Lastly, bridges with high truck ADT should take precedence
over those which have lower ADT. Other items of note should be whether
school buses use the bridge and the types of trucks that may cross the
bridge and the loads imposed.

17. In the event of project cost over runs how would they be funded?

The FHWA invites comment on the advisability of including within
any IRRBP procedures the following methodology for funding cost over
runs. Because of the critical nature of this program, BIA area road
engineer (ARE) approved costs in excess of the project estimate could
be funded out of this program depending on the availability of funds
and subject to BIADOT/ FLHO project approval procedures.

18. Could regular IRR funds be used to fund a bridge project?

The FHWA invites comment on the advisability of including within
any IRRBP procedures the following provision concerning use of regular
IRR funds to fund bridge projects. Indian tribal governments could use
regular IRR construction funds to fund a bridge project with the
concurrence of the FHWA, BIADOT and the ARE. (Note, IRR funds may not
be used to match state HBRRP funds.)

19. Could bridge maintenance be performed with these funds?

No. Bridge maintenance (BM) type repairs would not be within the
scope of funding, e.g. guard rail replacement, deck timber repair,
delineators replacement etc. There are BM funds available through
annual Department of Interior (DOI) appropriations for use on BIA owned
bridges. These DOI BM funds would be the appropriate funding source for
BM.

20. Once eligibility of a bridge project has been determined, how will
the project be funded/programmed?

The FHWA has preliminarily identified alternative procedures for
project funding of BIA owned and non-BIA owned IRR bridges and has set
forth these procedures for consideration in this notice. Commenters are
encouraged to review and assess these procedural alternatives and to
develop any additional strategies for distributing funds for the
rehabilitation or replacement of deficient IRR bridges. To assist in
this consideration process, the alternatives presented here also are
summarized and set forth for comparison purposes in the tabular form in
the appendix.

Funding Procedures for BIA Owned IRR Bbridges

Alternative Procedure No. 1

Funding and/or programming of construction projects would be based
on the annual calculation of bridge deck areas for deficient BIA owned
IRR bridges. This is the same procedure the FHWA uses to distribute
HBRRP program funds to the States. From this calculation, a percentage
of the obligation limitation would be reserved for each BIA area
office.

Alternative Procedure No. 2

[[Page 7232]]

program funds to the States. From this calculation, a percentage of the
obligation limitation would be reserved for each BIA area office for
use in that specific State where the deficient bridges are identified.
This would be similar to the way the not less than 1 percent HBRRP
operated under the ISTEA.

Alternative Procedure No. 3

Funding and/or programming of construction projects would be based
on the annual calculation of the number of deficient bridges for the
BIA owned IRR bridges. From this calculation, a percentage of the
bridge obligation limitation would be reserved for each BIA area
office. This distribution is based on the percentage of deficient
bridges within that BIA area office.

Alternative Procedure No. 4

Funding and/or programming of construction projects for BIA owned
IRR bridges would be based on the order of receipt of a complete
application package, i.e., eligibility requirements met, PS&E package
is complete, etc. All application packages would be placed in a queue
upon transmission to the BIADOT and date stamped. This submission queue
would form the basis for prioritization during any fiscal year. After
the queue for the FY is filled up, that is, the obligation limitation
is used up, a queue for the following FY would be established.

Alternative Procedure No. 5

Funding and/or programming of construction projects for BIA owned
IRR bridges would be based on the prioritization and ranking of
deficient bridges. The complete application package would be submitted
to the BIADOT and date stamped. Deadline for submission would be March
31 of any FY. Application packages would be ranked and prioritized
based on: (i) bridge sufficiency rating; (ii) bridge status with
structurally deficient having precedence over functionally obsolete;
(iii) bridges on school bus routes; (iv) detour length; (v) ADT; and
(vi) truck ADT. Funding and approval would be based on this priority
ranking.

Funding Procedures for Non-BIA Owned IRR Bridges

Alternative Procedure No. 1

Funding and/or programming of construction projects would be based
on the annual calculation of bridge deck areas for deficient non-BIA
owned IRR bridges. This is the same procedure the FHWA uses to
distribute HBRRP program funds to the States. From this calculation, a
percentage of the obligation limitation would be reserved for each BIA
area office.

Alternative Procedure No. 2

Funding and/or programming of construction projects for non-BIA
owned IRR bridges would be based on the order of receipt of a complete
application package, i.e., eligibility requirements met, PS&E package
is complete, etc. All application packages would be placed in a queue
upon transmission to the BIADOT and date stamped. This submission queue
would form the basis for prioritization during any fiscal year. After
the queue for the FY is filled up, that is, the obligation limitation
is used up, a queue for the following FY would be established.

Alternative Procedure No. 3

Based on the reasoning presented in items 9 and 11, funding for
non-BIA owned IRR bridges would be based on the prioritization and
ranking of deficient bridges. Bridge project candidates would be
submitted to the BIADOT and date stamped. Application packages would be
ranked and prioritized based on: (i) bridge sufficiency rating; (ii)
bridge status with structurally deficient having precedence over
functionally obsolete; (iii) bridges on school bus routes; (iv) detour
length; (v) ADT; and (vi) truck ADT. Funding and approval would be
based on this priority ranking.

21. Under alternative procedures presented above, after a bridge
project has been completed what happens with the excess or surplus
contract authority?

The FHWA expressly invites comment on these general considerations
for treatment of excess or surplus contract authority.
Under alternative procedures 1, 2, or 3 for funding BIA owned IRR
bridges, once a bridge construction project has been completed under
this program, any excess or surplus contract authority would be
reserved for use on another approved deficient IRR bridge project
within that BIA area.
Under alternative procedures 4 and 5 for funding BIA-owned IRR
bridges and alternative procedures 1, 2 or 3 for non-BIA owned IRR
bridges, once a bridge construction project has been completed under
this program, any excess or surplus contract authority would be
returned to FHWA/BIADOT for use on additional approved deficient IRR
bridge projects.

(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 202(d) and 315; sec. 1115, Pub. L. 105-178,
112 Stat. 107, 154; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: February 5, 1999.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.

Appendix--Alternatives for the IRR Bridge Program
[Deficient IRR Bridges]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge funds to be allocated to the BIA
Area Offices: Alt No. BIA Alt No. Non-BIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on bridge deck area for deficient 1 Calculation made of the deficient bridges 1 Calculation made of the deficient bridges
bridges. within any BIA Area Office along with within any BIA Area Office along with
percent of deficient bridge deck areas. percent of deficient bridge deck areas.
That percent of the fund is then made That percent of the fund is then made
available to each Area Office. Funds available to each Area Office. Funds
distributed to Areas and can be spent distributed to Areas and can be spent
against bridge projects regardless of against bridge projects regardless of
State. State. If no, non-BIA bridge projects
are identified in any FY, those funds
would be made available for BIA owned
bridges.

[[Page 7233]]

Based on bridge deck area for deficient 2 Calculation made of the deficient bridges ........... Intentionally left blank.
bridges but State specific. within any BIA Area Office along with
percent of deficient bridge deck areas.
That percent of the fund is then made
available to each Area Office. Funds
distributed to Areas and can be spent
only against bridge projects in the
specific state on which the deficient
bridge funds were generated (similar to
the not less than 1 percent HBRRP).
Based on number of deficient bridges.... 3 Calculation made of the number of ........... Intentionally left blank.
deficient bridges within a given BIA
Area Office. Based on the number of
deficient bridges, a percent of the fund
is then made available to each Area
Office. Funds distributed to Areas and
can be spent against bridge projects
regardless of State..
Based on order of receipt of the PS&E 4 Bridges are placed in a queue based on 2 Bridges are placed in a queue based on
package (first in first out). the order of receipt of a complete PS&E the order of receipt of a complete PS&E
package. Funds are made available to the package. Funds are made available to the
BIA Area Office based on the order of BIA Area Office based on the order of
submission. submission. If no, non-BIA bridge
projects are identified in any FY, those
funds would be made available for BIA
owned bridges.
Based on ranking of received PS&E 5 Bridges are prioritized and ranked based 3 Submitted complete PS&E packages are
Packages. on SR, status, school bus route, detour ranked and prioritized by sufficiency
length, ADT, and truck ADT. Funds are rating, etc. Funds are made available to
allocated to the BIA Area Office based the Area Office based on the priority
on the ranking. ranking. If no, non-BIA bridge projects
are identified in any FY, those funds
would be made available for BIA owned
bridges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-3509 Filed 2-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P