[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1096-1104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-104]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 972
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-4970]
RIN 2125-AE54
Federal Lands Highway Program; Management Systems Pertaining to
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge Roads Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of each
appropriate Federal land management agency to develop, to the extent
appropriate, safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management
systems for roads funded under the Federal Lands Highway program
(FLHP). The Secretary of Transportation has delegated the authority to
the FHWA to serve as the lead agency within the U.S. DOT to implement
the FLHP. The roads funded under the FLHP include Park Roads and
Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, and Indian Reservation Roads.
This rulemaking proposes to provide for the development and
implementation of safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management
systems for transportation facilities serving the National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) funded under the FLHP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments should 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
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 postcard or you may print the
acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bob Bini, Federal Lands Highway,
HFPD-2, (202) 366-6799, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
[[Page 1097]]
20590; office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. For legal questions, Ms.
Vivian Philbin, HFL-16, (303) 716-2122, FHWA, 555 Zang Street,
Lakewood, CO 80228. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., m.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS): http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day,
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a
computer, modem and suitable communications software from the
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)
512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's
home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing
Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
Section 1115(d) of the TEA-21 (Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107,
156 (1998)) amended 23 U.S.C. 204 to require the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land
management agency, to the extent appropriate, to develop safety,
bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded
under the FLHP. A management system is a process for collecting,
organizing and analyzing data to provide a strategic approach to
transportation planning, program development, and project selection.
Its purposes are to improve transportation system performance and
safety, and to develop alternative strategies for enhancing mobility of
people and goods.
The roads funded under the FLHP include, but are not limited to,
Park Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, and Indian
Reservation Roads. The Secretary of Transportation delegated to the
FHWA the authority to serve as the lead agency within the U.S.
Department of Transportation to administer the FLHP (see 49 CFR
1.48(b)(29)). This rulemaking action addresses the management systems
for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Refuge Roads program.
On September 1, 1999, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comments concerning development of
this proposed rule pertaining to the FWS and the Refuge Roads program
(64 FR 47741). The ANPRM requested comments on the feasibility of
developing a rule to meet both the transportation planning and
management systems requirements of the TEA-21. Therefore, comments made
to the docket addressed both transportation planning and management
systems issues. However, the FHWA has decided to publish separate NPRMs
for transportation planning and management systems. For this reason,
this NPRM concerns only the development of the management systems. This
NPRM includes responses to the comments submitted to the docket on the
ANPRM that addressed the proposed development of the four management
systems. Those comments on the ANPRM that addressed transportation
planning will be addressed at a later date. The FHWA received comments
addressing the management systems from various State Departments of
Transportation. These comments are summarized below. Specific comments
may be obtained by reviewing the materials in the docket.
Based on the comments on the ANPRM, the FHWA has developed this
NPRM to provide for the development and implementation of pavement,
bridge, safety, and congestion management systems for transportation
facilities serving the Refuge System funded under the FLHP. Separate
NPRMs on management systems have also been developed for the National
Park Service (NPS) and the Park Roads and Parkways program, the Forest
Service (FS) and the Forest Highway program, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Reservation Roads program. The other three
related NPRMs are published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
On April 21, 2000, then President Clinton issued Executive Order
(EO) 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental
Management. This EO requires all Federal agencies to implement an
environmental management system (EMS) to ensure that agencies develop
strategies to support environmental leadership in programs, policies,
and procedures and that senior level managers explicitly and actively
endorse these strategies. The EO requires that agencies implement an
EMS no later than December 31, 2005. Furthermore, in an April 1, 2002,
letter, the Bush Administration encouraged all agencies to promote the
use of EMS in Federal, State, local, and private facilities and
directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report annually
on how well each agency has done in promoting EMS.
The FHWA has already begun working toward establishing an EMS.
Additionally, the FWHA is working with the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Center for
Environmental Excellence to include EMS as part of an environmental
stewardship demonstration project. The FHWA is currently providing
technical and financial assistance to the Center, which in turn
supports States that have initiated EMSs.\1\ Furthermore, the FHWA
continues to demonstrate environmental stewardship by encouraging the
use of EMS in the construction, operation, and maintenance of
transportation facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ More information on how EMS applies to transportation
organizations can be found on the AASHTO's Center for Environmental
Excellence Web site at the following URL: http//itre.ncsu.edu/AASHTO/stewardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although an EMS may have some overlap with the four management
systems that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking, the FHWA has
decided not to incorporate the EMS in this rulemaking. The FHWA
believes that great progress has been made on the EMS and promoting the
use of EMS by the States. In addition, the FHWA has a long-standing
working relationship with the Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs)
through the Federal Lands Highway Program. The natural resource
conservation and preservation missions of these agencies have led to
the development of a jointly held environmental ethic that pervades
transportation project decision-making through the use of context
sensitive design, best management practices, and a heightened
sensitivity to environmental impacts. This relationship provides a
strong foundation for the FHWA to encourage the use of environmental
management systems by the FLMAs. For example, the National Park Service
currently has an initiative underway to implement a service-wide EMS
approach. The FHWA and the NPS can evaluate ways to coordinate the use
and development of the EMS with the transportation management systems
through the joint development of the management system implementation
plan called for in this
[[Page 1098]]
rulemaking. A similar approach can be used with all of the FLMAs.
Any EMS developed by the FHWA, or by a FLMA, will not have an
adverse effect on any of the management systems in this proposed
rulemaking. Instead, such an EMS may help foster a movement toward the
use of a comprehensive asset management system that incorporates EMS,
along with the transportation management systems proposed in this
rulemaking, and others not covered in this proposed action, such as a
maintenance management system. The role of the EMS in a more
comprehensive approach would demonstrate a commitment to environmental
stewardship that goes beyond the individual project level or the
development of a multi-project transportation program. The EMS should
be a fundamentally important business tool that pervades all aspects of
FLMA transportation decision-making. The FHWA will continue to advance
its EMS and promote the EMS initiatives of the FLMAs through
implementation planning for the transportation management systems. In
addition, the FHWA will continue to promote the use of EMSs in the
construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities.
In developing the management system implementation plans, the need
for data elements that address the environmental performance measures
can be evaluated in relationship to individual agency plans to
implement an EMS. This could provide an opportunity for the ongoing
collection of environmental information, if appropriate and necessary.
At a minimum, this would provide an opportunity to link existing
environmental data to the transportation management systems using a
geographic information system common to both systems.
From the FHWA's stewardship perspective regarding the Federal Lands
Highway Program, EMS is most appropriately pursued as part of sound
FLMA business management planning. Thus, the FHWA has decided not to
address the EMS requirement in this proposed rulemaking action.
Summary of Comments Received on the ANPRM Pertaining to the FWS and the
Refuge Roads Program
The following discussion summarizes the comments received on the
ANPRM and the FHWA's response to these comments. This discussion
provides the public a general sense of the issues addressed in the
comments. As previously stated, this NPRM is intended for the
development of management systems. Therefore, this summary contains
only comments and responses related to the management systems. There
are instances where reference is made to transportation planning issues
because the management systems serve as a guide to planning activities.
Rule Development
Comments: The majority of comments supported the FHWA's proposal to
develop ``separate rules'' pertaining to the FWS and the Refuge Roads
program, the NPS and the Park Roads and Parkways program, the BIA and
the Indian Reservations Roads program, and the FS and the Forest
Highway program. The commenters in favor of this proposal pointed out
the fact that transportation planning functions for the different
Federal lands highways are performed by various Federal, State, and
local entities, depending on ownership of the roadways and
responsibilities for constructing and maintaining the facilities.
The Wisconsin DOT and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet offered
an opposite view. These two State Transportation Departments requested
that we develop only one general rule applicable to all four agencies.
The Wisconsin DOT suggested that this rule be flexible so that it
recognizes the different approaches used by the States. The Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet recommended that the rule should require the
Federal land management agencies (FLMAs) to develop Memoranda of
Understanding or Agreements that would address the consistency between
the Federal land transportation planning procedures and those required
under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet was
concerned that the additional rules might jeopardize existing
procedures already in effect.
Response: Following the recommendations from the majority of
commenters, the FHWA, in consultation with each appropriate Federal
land management agency, developed a separate rule pertaining to each
agency: The FWS, the NPS, the FS, and the BIA. The variance among the
rules allows for the significant differences in the ownership,
jurisdiction, and maintenance responsibilities that the FLMAs exercise
over the subject roadways addressed in the rule. To ensure uniformity,
the FHWA coordinated the development of each NPRM, so that similar text
and format are contained in each of the rules.
Addressing the Management Systems Requirements
Comments: Many States believe that the management systems should
only be developed as needed and should relate to systems that are
already implemented by States and local agencies. It was recommended
that the FHWA encourage the Federal agencies to explore and use the
States' existing systems. The States also recommended the systems be
tailored to fit local conditions, and be applicable solely to the
portion of the Federal lands highways owned and maintained by Federal
agencies. Many of the States are concerned that the implementation of
the management systems may affect the current working relationships
among State, Tribal, local, and Federal agencies. The Wisconsin DOT
encouraged the FHWA to work with the FLMA's and State Transportation
Departments to clarify ownership discrepancies between Federal and
State data. They suggested that the FLMA's have accurate data
reflecting the amount of mileage the agencies own by location. Further,
these data have to agree with data reported by States in the Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The HPMS was developed in 1978 as a national highway
transportation system database. It includes limited data on all
public roads, more detailed data for a sample of the arterial and
collector functional system, and certain summary information for
urbanized, small urban and rural areas. Additional information about
this database is available online at the URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The stakeholders' concerns presented above were
considered in the development of this NPRM. Each of the proposed
management system rules calls for the FHWA, in cooperation with the
FLMA, to develop an implementation plan or implementation procedures
for each of the management systems. In addition, flexibility is
provided to determine criteria for the need and applicability of each
of the FLMAs management systems. These implementation plans will
provide the opportunity to relate the FLMA management systems to
systems already implemented by States and local agencies. It will also
allow the management systems to be tailored to fit a broad range of
local conditions, and to avoid inefficient duplication of management
systems already in use by the States. Development of the implementation
plans will provide an opportunity to strengthen the working
relationships among Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies, as well
as define responsibility for and ownership of data.
[[Page 1099]]
Comments: The Wisconsin DOT also stated that the FHWA should
clarify that this rule and the National Highway System (NHS)
Designation Act of 1995, Public Law 104-59, 109 Stat. 568, do not make
the implementation of management systems mandatory.
Responses: While it is correct that the Public Law 104-59 made the
management systems optional for States and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), except for the congestion management systems in
MPOs with a population of greater than 200,000, section 1115(d) of TEA-
21 applies to the Federal land management agencies, not directly to the
States; however, States may be requested to provide information. The
TEA-21, enacted on June 9, 1998, amended 23 U.S.C. 204 to specify ``The
Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management
agency shall, to the extent appropriate, develop by rule safety,
bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded
under the Federal lands highways program.'' Therefore, the development
and implementation of the management systems, where appropriate, is
mandated by law for the Federal land management agencies.
Approach to Structure of Proposed Regulation
In the development of this proposed rule, the FHWA has attempted to
minimize the level of data collection and analyses required. The FHWA
now solicits comments on the extent to which this strategy has been
achieved. Any comments suggesting that the strategy has not been
successful should identify the specific reasons why requirements and/or
provisions are burdensome. Suggestions to lessen burdens are welcome.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Subpart A
Section 972.100 Purpose
This section states that subpart A provides definitions for terms
used in this rule.
Section 972.102 Applicability
This section states that the definitions in subpart A are
applicable to this rule.
Section 972.104 Definitions
This section incorporates the terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 49
U.S.C. 5302, and 23 CFR part 450. It also includes additional
definitions for terms used in this part.
The phrase ``Federal lands'' or ``Indian lands,'' as applicable,
would be added to the definitions of ``bridge management system
(BMS),'' ``congestion management system (CMS),'' ``pavement management
system (PMS),'' and ``safety management system (SMS)'' to indicate the
distinction between the Federal or Indian lands, and Federal-aid
management systems (refer to 23 CFR part 500 for definitions of the
Federal-aid management systems). The management system definitions also
specify their applicability to the BIA, FS, FWS and NPS, as
appropriate.
Subpart B
Section 972.200 Purpose
This section states the purpose of this proposed rule, which is to
fulfill the requirements set forth by the TEA-21.
Section 972.202 Applicability
This section defines the applicability of the management systems.
Section 972.204 Management Systems Requirements
This section sets forth general requirements for all four
management systems. Additional requirements applicable to specific
systems are in Sec. Sec. 972.208 through 972.214.
Paragraph (a) states that the FWS shall develop, establish, and
implement the management systems. Paragraphs (a) and (e) provide
flexibility in the development of the management systems. Paragraph (b)
requires the FHWA and the FWS to develop implementation plans for the
management systems. To ensure the management systems are developed,
implemented, and operated systematically, paragraph (c) requires the
development of procedures that will include the following:
Consideration of management system results in the planning process;
system analysis; a description of each management system; operation and
maintenance of management systems and databases; and data collection,
processing, analysis, and updating. Paragraph (d) ensures that the
database has a geographical reference system so that information can be
geolocated. Paragraph (f) requires a periodical evaluation process of
the effectiveness of the management systems, preferably as part of the
transportation planning process. Paragraph (g) ensures that
transportation investment decisions based on management system results
would be used at the regional level.
Section 972.206 Funds for Establishment, Development, and
Implementation of the Systems
This section provides that the funds available for the Refuge Roads
program can be used for development, establishment, and implementation
of the management systems in accordance with legislative provisions for
the funds.
Section 972.208 Federal Lands Pavement Management System (PMS)
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the PMS. Paragraph (b)
permits the use of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) ``Pavement Management Guide ''\3\ as
a guide for the development of the PMS. Paragraph (c) provides
flexibility for the development of the PMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Pavement Management Guide,'' AASHTO, 2001, is available
for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased
online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf
or mail addressed to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box
96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section further sets forth processes and procedures that must
be included in a PMS. They include requirements for a basic framework
composed of data collection and maintenance, network level analysis,
and reporting procedures.
Section 972.210 Federal Lands Bridge Management System (BMS)
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the BMS. The section
sets forth processes and procedures that must be included in a BMS.
They consist of data collection and maintenance, analytical procedures,
and reporting procedures.
Section 972.212 Federal Lands Safety Management System (SMS)
Paragraph (a) defines the applicability of the SMS. Paragraph (b)
permits the use of the FHWA publication entitled ``Safety Management
Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development
and Implementation,'' FHWA and NHTSA, May 1996, may be obtained at
the FHWA, Office of Safety, Room 3407, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, or electronically at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/documents.htm. It is available for
inspection and copying as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the strong emphasis the TEA-21 has on safety, paragraph
(c) requires the SMS to be used to ensure that safety is considered and
implemented as appropriate in all phases of transportation planning,
programming and project implementation. Paragraph (d) states that the
level of complexity of a SMS depends on the nature of the facilities
involved.
Paragraph (e) section sets forth components that must be included
in a SMS. They include data collection and
[[Page 1100]]
maintenance, identification and correction of potential safety
problems, communications, public education, and reporting.
To provide flexibility, paragraph (f) states that the extent of SMS
requirements set forth in this proposed rule for low volume roads may
be tailored to be consistent with the functional classification of the
roads. However, each functional classification should include adequate
requirements to ensure effective safety decision-making.
Section 972.214 Federal Lands Congestion Management System (CMS)
This section defines congestion and specifies that the FWS shall
consider the results of the CMS in selecting strategies to address
congestion. In addition, it requires the FWS to consider strategies
that reduce private automobile travel and improve existing
transportation system efficiency. Paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3)
address CMS coverage for portions of the FWS transportation systems
inside and outside the boundaries of transportation management areas
(TMAs).
Paragraph (b)(4) further sets forth components to be included in a
CMS. They include the following: Identification and documentation of
measures for congestion; identification of the causes of congestion;
development of evaluation processes; identification of benefits;
determination of methods to monitor and evaluate performance of the
overall transportation system after strategies are implemented;
consideration of example strategies provided in the proposed rule; and
provision of information supporting the implementation of actions.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this
document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file
comments received after the comment closing date in the docket and will
consider late comments to the extent practicable. In addition to late
comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant
information becoming available after the comment closing date, and
interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new
material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the
comment period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined preliminarily that the proposed rule would
be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive
Order 12866, and under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, because of the substantial public
interest anticipated in the transportation facilities of the Refuges.
The FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of any action taken in
this rulemaking process will be minimal. The FHWA anticipates that the
proposed changes will not adversely affect any sector of the economy in
a material way. Though the proposed action here will impact the FWS, it
will not likely interfere with any action taken or planned by the FWS
or another agency, or materially alter the budgetary impact of any
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
Based upon the information received in response to this proposed
action, the FHWA intends to carefully consider the costs and benefits
associated with this rulemaking. Accordingly, comments, information,
and data are solicited on the economic impact of the proposal described
in this document or any alternative proposal submitted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on
small entities and has determined that the proposed action would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Commenters are encouraged to evaluate any options addressed
here with regard to the potential for impact.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose a mandate that requires further
analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not
result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal Governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). This rulemaking proposes to provide for the
development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and
congestion management systems for transportation facilities serving the
Refuge System. These roads are funded under the FLHP; therefore the
proposed rule is not considered an unfunded mandate. Further, in
compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will
evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent
stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and
Tribal Governments and the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated
August 4, 1999. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action would
not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that the
proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental
functions. However, commenters are encouraged to consider these issues,
as well as matters concerning any costs or burdens that might be
imposed on the States as a result of actions considered here.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor,
or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this
proposed rule contains a requirement for data and information to be
collected and maintained in the four management systems that are to be
developed. In order to streamline the process, the FHWA intends to
request that the OMB approve a single information collection clearance
for all of the data in the four management systems at the time that the
requirements in this proposal are made final. The FHWA is sponsoring
this proposed clearance on behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The FHWA estimates that a total of 3,700 burden hours would be
imposed on non-Federal entities to provide the required information.
Respondents to this information collection include State Transportation
Departments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations
[[Page 1101]]
(MPOs), Tribal governments, regional transportation planning agencies,
and county and local governments. The Fish and Wildlife Service would
bear the burden of developing the management systems in a manner that
would incorporate any existing data in the most efficient way and
without additional burdens to the public. The estimates here only
include burdens on the respondents to provide information that is not
usually and customarily collected.
Where a substantial level of effort may be required of non-Federal
entities to provide management system information, the effort has been
benchmarked to the number of miles of State or locally owned roads or
the number of State or locally owned bridges within the agency's
jurisdiction. This approach has been applied to the PMS, BMS and SMS.
Since a substantial portion of the FWS system is State and locally
owned roads, the burden on States, and county and local governments
will be measurable at a level commensurate with the relatively modest
extent of the public FWS system. The total annual burden estimate for
these three systems is 1,300 hours. Burden estimates are 500 hours per
year for the PMS, 300 hours per year for the BMS, and 500 hours per
year for the SMS.
For implementation of the CMS, the non-Federal burden, if
applicable, would likely fall to the MPOs, and represents the need for
the FLMA's to coordinate their management systems with the MPOs for
that portion of their transportation system that is within the MPO
area. For estimating purposes, approximately 60 MPOs nationwide, may be
burdened by the proposed regulation. Forty hours of burden were
assigned to each of the 60 MPO's, resulting in a total annual burden
estimate of 2,400 hours attributable to the FWS CMS.
The FHWA is required to submit this proposed collection of
information to the OMB for review and approval and, accordingly, seeks
public comments. Interested parties are invited to send comments
regarding any aspect of these information collection requirements,
including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the
FHWA, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to
minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the
information collected.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that this proposed action would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment. An environmental impact statement is,
therefore, not required.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposal will not
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal government,
and will not preempt tribal law. The requirements set forth in the
proposed rule do not directly affect one or more Indian tribes.
Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed action meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We have analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not economically significant and does not
involve an environmental risk to health and safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed rule will not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This proposed rule has been analyzed under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distributions, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a
significant energy action under that order because, although the
proposed action is considered to be a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 972
Bridges, Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Highways
and roads, Public lands, Transportation, Wildlife refuges.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below.
Issued on: December 20, 2002.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
1. Add a new part 972 to subchapter L to read as follows:
PART 972--FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Subpart A--Definitions
Sec.
972.100 Purpose.
972.102 Applicability.
972.104 Definitions.
Subpart B--Fish and Wildlife Service Management Systems
Sec.
972.200 Purpose.
972.202 Applicability.
972.204 Management systems requirements.
972.206 Funds for establishment, development and implementation of
the systems.
972.208 Federal lands Pavement Management System (PMS).
972.210 Federal lands Bridge Management System (BMS).
972.212 Federal lands Safety Management System (SMS).
972.214 Federal lands Congestion Management System (CMS).
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 204, 315; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 CFR
1.48.
Subpart A--Definitions
Sec. 972.100 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to provide definitions for terms
used in this part.
Sec. 972.102 Applicability.
The definitions in this subpart are applicable to this part, except
as otherwise provided.
[[Page 1102]]
Sec. 972.104 Definitions.
Alternative transportation systems means modes of transportation
other than private vehicles, including methods to improve system
performance such as transportation demand management, congestion
management, and intelligent transportation systems. These mechanisms
help reduce the use of private vehicles and thus improve overall
efficiency of transportation systems and facilities.
Elements means the components of a bridge important from a
structural, user, or cost standpoint. Examples are decks, joints,
bearings, girders, abutments, and piers.
Federal lands bridge management system (BMS) means a systematic
process used by the Forest Service (FS), the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) and the National Park Service (NPS) for analyzing bridge data to
make forecasts and recommendations, and provides the means by which
bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement programs and
policies may be effectively considered.
Federal lands congestion management system (CMS) means a systematic
process used by the FS, FWS and NPS for managing congestion that
provides information on transportation system performance and
alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the
mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet Federal, State and
local needs.
Federal Lands Highway program (FLHP) means a federally funded
program established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to address transportation needs of
Federal and Indian lands.
Federal lands pavement management system (PMS) means a systematic
process used by the FS, FWS and NPS that provides information for use
in implementing cost-effective pavement reconstruction, rehabilitation,
and preventive maintenance programs and policies and that results in
pavement designed to accommodate current and forecasted traffic in a
safe, durable, and cost-effective manner.
Federal lands safety management system (SMS) means a systematic
process used by the FS, FWS and NPS with the goal of reducing the
number and severity of traffic accidents by ensuring that all
opportunities to improve roadway safety are identified, considered,
implemented and evaluated as appropriate, during all phases of highway
planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance, by providing
information for selecting and implementing effective highway safety
strategies and projects.
Fish and Wildlife Service transportation plan means the official
Fish and Wildlife Service-wide multimodal transportation plan that is
developed through the Fish and Wildlife Service transportation planning
process pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
Highway safety means the reduction of traffic accidents, and
deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom, on public
roads.
Intelligent transportation system (ITS) means electronics,
communications, or information processing used singly or in combination
to improve the efficiency and safety of a surface transportation
system.
Life-cycle cost analysis means an evaluation of costs incurred over
the life of a project allowing a comparative analysis between or among
various alternatives. Life-cycle cost analysis promotes consideration
of total cost, to include maintenance and operation expenditures.
Comprehensive life-cycle costs analysis includes all economic variables
essential to the evaluation: User costs such as delay and safety costs
associated with maintenance and rehabilitation projects, agency capital
cost, and life-cycle maintenance costs.
Metropolitan planning area means the geographic area in which the
metropolitan transportation planning process required by 23 U.S.C. 134
and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 must be carried out.
Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) means the forum for
cooperative transportation decisionmaking for the metropolitan planning
area pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) means all the lands
and waters reported by the FWS as being part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System in the annual ``Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S.
FWS.''\1\ Included in the Refuge System are those lands that are
generally known as refuges, waterfowl production areas, wetland
management districts, and coordination areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Report of Lands under Control of the U.S. FWS,'' U.S. FWS,
(published annually on September 30). A free copy is available from
the U.S. FWS, Division of Realty, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite
622, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone: (703) 358-1713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations means those activities associated with managing,
controlling, and regulating highway traffic.
Refuge road means a public road that provides access to or within a
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System and for which title and
maintenance responsibilities is vested in the United States Government.
Refuge Road transportation improvement program (RRTIP) means a
staged, multiyear, multimodal program of transportation projects for
the Refuge Road Program consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service
transportation plan and planning processes pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
Refuge Roads program means the funds allocated each fiscal year, as
described in 23 U.S.C. 202(e).
Secretary means the Secretary of Transportation.
State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia,
or Puerto Rico.
Transportation facilities means roads, streets, bridges, parking
areas, transit vehicles, and other related transportation
infrastructure.
Transportation Management Area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a
population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest decennial census)
or other area when TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the
MPO (or affected local officials), and officially designated by the
Administrators of the FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA). The TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning
area(s).
Subpart B--Fish and Wildlife Service Management Systems
Sec. 972.200 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement 23 U.S.C. 204 which
requires the Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal
land management agency to develop, to the extent appropriate, safety,
bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded
under the FLHP.
Sec. 972.202 Applicability.
The provisions in this subpart are applicable to the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) which is responsible for satisfying these
requirements for management systems pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204.
Sec. 972.204 Management systems requirements.
(a) The FWS shall develop, establish and implement the management
systems as described in this subpart. The FWS may tailor the management
systems to meet the FWS goals, policies, and needs.
(b) The FWS and the FHWA shall develop an implementation plan for
each of the management systems. These plans will include, but are not
limited to, the following: Overall goals and policies concerning the
management systems, each agency's responsibilities for developing and
implementing the
[[Page 1103]]
management systems, implementation schedule, data sources, and cost
estimate. The FHWA will provide the FWS ongoing technical engineering
support for the development, implementation, and maintenance of the
management systems.
(c) The FWS shall develop and implement procedures for the
development, establishment, implementation and operation of management
systems. The procedures shall include:
(1) A process for ensuring the results of any of the management
systems are considered in the development of FWS transportation plans
and transportation improvement programs and in making project selection
decisions under 23 U.S.C. 204;
(2) A process for the analyses and coordination of all management
system outputs to systematically operate, maintain, and upgrade
existing transportation assets cost-effectively;
(3) A description of each management system;
(4) A process to operate and maintain the management systems and
their associated databases; and
(5) A process for data collection, processing, analysis and
updating for each management system.
(d) All management systems will use databases with a geographical
reference system that can be used to geolocate all database
information.
(e) Existing data sources may be used by the FWS to the maximum
extent possible to meet the management system requirements.
(f) The FWS shall develop an appropriate means to evaluate the
effectiveness of the management systems in enhancing transportation
decision-making and improving the overall efficiency of the affected
federally owned transportation systems and facilities. This evaluation
is to be conducted periodically, preferably as part of the
comprehensive conservation planning process.
(g) The management systems shall be operated so investment
decisions based on management system outputs can be accomplished at the
regional level.
Sec. 972.206 Funds for establishment, development, and implementation
of the systems.
The FLHP Refuge Roads program funds may be used for development,
establishment, and implementation of the management systems. These
funds are to be administered in accordance with the procedures and
requirements applicable to the funds.
Sec. 972.208 Federal lands Pavement Management System (PMS).
In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 972.204, the PMS
must meet the following requirements:
(a) The FWS shall, at a minimum, have PMS coverage of all paved
refuge roads and other associated facilities, as appropriate, funded
under the FLHP.
(b) The PMS may be based on the concepts described in the AASHTO's
``Pavement Management Guide.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Pavement Management Guide,'' AASHTO, 2001, is available
for inspection as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7. It may be purchased
online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf
or mail addressed to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box
96716, Washington, DC 20090-6716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The PMS may be utilized at various levels of technical
complexity depending on the nature of the pavement network. These
different levels may depend on mileages, functional classes, volumes,
loadings, usage, surface type, or other criteria the FWS deems
appropriate.
(d) The PMS shall be designed to fit the FWS goals, policies,
criteria, and needs using the following components, at a minimum, as a
basic framework for a PMS:
(1) A database and an ongoing program for the collection and
maintenance of the inventory, inspection, cost, and supplemental data
needed to support the PMS. The minimum PMS database shall include:
(i) An inventory of the physical pavement features including the
number of lanes, length, width, surface type, functional
classification, and shoulder information;
(ii) A history of project dates and types of construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance. If some of
the inventory or historic data are difficult to establish, it may be
collected when preservation or reconstruction work is performed;
(iii) A condition survey that includes ride, distress, rutting, and
surface friction (as appropriate);
(iv) Traffic information including volumes and vehicle
classification (as appropriate); and
(v) Data for estimating the costs of actions.
(2) A system for applying network level analytical procedures that
are capable of analyzing data for all FWS managed transportation
facilities in the inventory or any subset. The minimum analyses shall
include:
(i) A pavement condition analysis that includes ride, distress,
rutting, and surface friction (as appropriate);
(ii) A pavement performance analysis that includes present and
predicted performance and an estimate of the remaining service life
(performance and remaining service life to be developed with time); and
(iii) An investment analysis that:
(A) Identifies alternative strategies to improve pavement
conditions;
(B) Estimates costs of any pavement improvement strategy;
(C) Determines maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation strategies
for pavements using life-cycle cost analysis or a comparable procedure;
(D) Provides short and long term budget forecasting; and
(E) Recommends optimal allocation of limited funds by developing a
prioritized list of candidate projects over a predefined planning
horizon (both short and long term).
(e) For any FWS managed transportation facilities in the inventory
or subset thereof, PMS reporting requirements shall include, but are
not limited to, percentage of roads in good, fair, and poor condition.
Sec. 972.210 Federal Lands Bridge Management System (BMS).
In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 972.204, the BMS
must meet the following requirements:
(a) The FWS shall have a BMS for bridges which are under the FWS
jurisdiction, funded under the FLHP, and required to be inventoried and
inspected under 23 CFR part 650, subpart C, National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS).
(b) The BMS shall be designed to fit the FWS goals, policies,
criteria, and needs using the following components, as a minimum, as a
basic framework for a BMS:
(1) A database and an ongoing program for the collection and
maintenance of the inventory, inspection, cost, and supplemental data
needed to support the BMS. The minimum BMS database shall include:
(i) The inventory data required by the NBIS (23 CFR 650.311(a));
(ii) Data characterizing the severity and extent of deterioration
of bridge elements;
(iii) Data for estimating the cost of improvement actions;
(iv) Traffic information including volumes and vehicle
classification (as appropriate); and
(v) A history of conditions and actions taken on each bridge,
excluding minor or incidental maintenance.
(2) Analytical procedures that are capable of analyzing data for
all bridges in the inventory or any subset. These procedures include,
as appropriate, such factors as bridge condition, recommended repairs/
replacement and
[[Page 1104]]
estimated costs, prediction of the estimated remaining life of the
bridge, development of a prioritized list of candidate projects over a
specified planning horizon, and budget forecasting.
(c) For any bridge in the inventory or subset thereof, BMS
reporting requirements shall include, but are not limited to,
percentage of non-deficient bridges.
Sec. 972.212 Federal lands Safety Management System (SMS).
In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 972.204, the SMS
must meet the following requirements:
(a) The FWS shall have an SMS for all transportation facilities
serving the Refuge System, as appropriate, funded under the FLHP.
(b) The FWS SMS may be based on the guidance in ``Safety Management
Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation,'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development
and Implementation,'' FHWA and NHTSA, May 1996, may be obtained at
the FHWA, Office of Safety, Room 3407, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, or electronically at http://safety.thwa.dot.gov/media/documents.htm. It is available for
inspection and copying as prescribed as 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The FWS shall utilize the SMS to ensure that safety is
considered and implemented as appropriate in all phases of
transportation system planning, design, construction, maintenance, and
operations.
(d) The SMS may be utilized at various levels of complexity
depending on the nature of the facility involved.
(e) The SMS shall be designed to fit the FWS goals, policies,
criteria, and needs using, as a minimum, the following components as a
basic framework for a SMS:
(1) An ongoing program for the collection, maintenance and
reporting of a database that includes:
(i) Accident records with sufficient detail for analysis such as
accident type using standard reporting descriptions (e.g. right-angle,
rear-end, head-on, pedestrian-related, etc.), location, description of
event, severity, weather and cause;
(ii) An inventory of safety appurtenances such as signs,
delineators, and guardrails (including terminals);
(iii) Traffic information including volumes and vehicle
classification (as appropriate); and
(iv) Accident rates by customary criteria such as location, roadway
classification, and vehicle miles of travel.
(2) Development, establishment and implementation of procedures
for:
(i) Routinely maintaining and upgrading safety appurtenances
including highway-rail crossing warning devices, signs, highway
elements, and operational features where appropriate; and
(ii) Identifying and investigating hazardous or potentially
hazardous transportation system safety problems, roadway locations and
features, then establishing countermeasures and setting priorities to
correct the identified hazards and potential hazards;
(3) A process for communication, coordination, and cooperation
among the organizations responsible for the roadway, human, and vehicle
safety elements; and
(4) Development and implementation of public information and
education activities on safety needs, programs, and countermeasures
which affect safety on the FWS transportation systems.
(f) While the SMS applies to appropriate transportation facilities
serving the Refuge System funded under the FLHP, the extent of system
requirements (e.g., data collection, analyses, and standards) for low
volume roads may be tailored to be consistent with the functional
classification of the roads. However, adequate detail should be
included for each functional classification to provide for effective
inclusion of safety decisions in the administration of transportation
by the FWS.
Sec. 972.214 Federal lands Congestion Management System (CMS).
(a) For purposes of this section, congestion means the level at
which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to
traffic interference. For those FWS transportation systems that require
a CMS, in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, consideration
shall be given to strategies that reduce private automobile travel and
improve existing transportation system efficiency. Approaches may
include the use of alternate mode studies and implementation plans as
components of the CMS. The FWS shall consider the results of the CMS
when selecting the implementation of strategies that provide the most
efficient and effective use of existing and future transportation
facilities, and alleviate congestion.
(b) In addition to the requirements provided in Sec. 972.204, the
CMS must meet the following requirements:
(1) For portions of the FWS transportation system within TMAs, the
FWS transportation planning process shall include a CMS that meets the
requirements of this section. By agreement between the TMA and the FWS,
the TMA's CMS coverage may include the transportation facilities
serving the Refuge System, as appropriate. Through this agreement(s),
the FWS may meet the requirements of this section.
(2) If a TMA's CMS does not provide coverage of the portions of the
FWS transportation facilities within the boundaries of the TMA, the FWS
shall develop a separate CMS to cover those facilities within the
boundaries of the TMA.
(3) For portions of the FWS transportation system outside the
boundaries of TMA's, the FWS shall:
(i) Develop criteria to determine when a CMS is to be implemented
for a specific transportation system; and
(ii) Have CMS coverage for all transportation facilities serving
the Refuge System, as appropriate, funded through the FLHP that meet
minimum CMS needs criteria.
(4) A CMS will:
(i) Identify and document measures for congestion (e.g., level of
service);
(ii) Identify the causes of congestion;
(iii) Include processes for evaluating the cost and effectiveness
of alternative strategies to manage congestion;
(iv) Identify the anticipated benefits of appropriate alternative
traditional and nontraditional congestion management strategies;
(v) Determine methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of
the multi-modal transportation system;
(vi) Appropriately consider the following example categories of
strategies, or combinations of strategies for each area:
(A) Transportation demand management measures;
(B) Traffic operational improvements;
(C) Public transportation improvements;
(D) ITS technologies;
(E) Additional system capacity; and
(vii) Provide information supporting the implementation of actions.
[FR Doc. 03-104 Filed 1-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P