[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9483-9490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4054]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 972
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-4970]
FHWA 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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule provides 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 Federal Lands Highway
Program (FLHP) as required by the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21). The roads funded under the FLHP include Park
Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads, Indian Reservation
Roads, and Public Lands Highways. These management systems will provide
a strategic approach to transportation planning, program development,
and project selection.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bob Bini, Federal Lands Highway,
HFPD-2, (202) 366-6799, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
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
This final rule, the ANPRM, the NPRM, and all comments received by
the U.S. Docket Facility, Room PL-401, may be viewed through the Docket
Management System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov. The DMS is available 24
hours each day, 365 days each year.
[[Page 9484]]
Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available
under the help section of this 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.archives.gov and the Government Printing
Office's Web site at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
Section 1115(d) of the TEA-21 (Pub. L. 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 by rule
safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads
funded under the FLHP. The roads funded under the FLHP include, but are
not limited to, Park Roads and Parkways, Forest Highways, Refuge Roads,
Indian Reservation Roads, and Public Lands Highways. 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. Separate final rules 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 final rules are
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
On September 1, 1999, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comments concerning development of
a 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. 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. Subsequently, the FHWA decided to issue a separate
rulemaking document for the management systems and address the planning
systems at a later date.
On January 8, 2003, (68 FR 1096) the FHWA issued the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comments on the proposal to
implement management systems. These comments are summarized in the
``Summary of Comments'' section. Based on the comments received to the
docket, the FHWA has developed this final rule to provide for the
development and implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and
congestion management systems for transportation facilities providing
access to the Refuge System and funded under the FLHP. There are
instances where reference is made to transportation planning because
the management systems serve as a guide to planning activities;
however, this final rule only implements the development of management
systems.
During the rulemaking process, the FHWA considered other elements
for their relationship to the management systems. Among these was the
need for an environmental management system (EMS). The FHWA is
currently supporting and participating in the development of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
Center for Environmental Excellence in which EMSs, as they relate to
transportation, are a major component. This is consistent with the
FHWA's priority on environmental stewardship and streamlining. The FHWA
continues to demonstrate environmental stewardship by promoting the use
of EMSs in the construction, operation, and maintenance of
transportation facilities. As implementation plans are developed for
the management systems, the FHWA will promote coordination of the
transportation management systems with individual agency plans to
implement an EMS. At a minimum, this would provide an opportunity to
link existing environmental data to the transportation management
systems using a common geographic information system. The FHWA decided
not to address EMS as part of this rulemaking action, but recognizing
the importance of EMS initiatives, the FHWA believes that EMSs are most
appropriately pursued as part of sound business planning of each
individual agency.
Summary of Comments
The FHWA received three comments to the docket on the NPRM. Of
these three, one was from a five-State coalition of State Departments
of Transportation (State DOTs), comprised of the State DOTs of Idaho,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming (the State DOT
coalition), and the other two were from the California (Caltrans) and
Washington (WSDOT) State DOTs. The following discussion summarizes the
specific comments received and the FHWA's response to the comments.
Rule Development
Comment: Caltrans and the WSDOT provided supportive comments.
Caltrans indicated general support for the FHWA's efforts to develop
management systems for transportation facilities on Federal lands.
The WSDOT stated the application of management systems for
transportation facilities on Federal lands was a good business
practice, and the agency offered to provide technical assistance to the
Federal land management agencies (FLMAs).
Response: The FHWA supports efforts by the WSDOT to provide
technical assistance in the development of the management systems, and
encourages all State DOTs to provide technical assistance, if
requested. In addition, the FHWA appreciates recognition by Caltrans
and the WSDOT of the importance of the management systems to the FLMAs.
Comment: The FWS inquired about the feasibility of broadening the
definition of the term Refuge road to include National Fish Hatchery
roads, to allow for any future expansion in eligibility in the event
that the Congress should add this category of roads to the Refuge Road
program.
Response: The FHWA believes that it would be speculative to attempt
to draft a definition broad enough to cover the addition of this
category of roads, and any details that may accompany such a change,
until the Congress takes such action. However, the FWS can elect to
collect data for National Fish Hatchery Roads for inclusion in the
management systems using their own funds. The FHWA would support such
an effort as useful to overall system management in the future.
Implementation--Process and Coordination Issues
Comments: The State DOT coalition and Caltrans suggested Federal
agencies should use existing systems to avoid redundancy and assure
compatibility with existing State systems.
The State DOT coalition further suggested that two methods to
achieve this are coordinating with the State DOTs that currently have
management systems in place to assure compatibility, or pooling
resources with other Federal land management agencies. The State DOT
coalition also indicated
[[Page 9485]]
management systems should be implemented efficiently to control costs,
by limiting the data collected to the minimum necessary to achieve
goals and objectives for the Refuge Road program. The State DOT
coalition further indicated that judicious determination of the extent
of the requirements for the new management systems could preserve
program funds for actual projects. The State DOT coalition suggested
including a provision in the rule that excludes from the management
systems any roads that are already the responsibility of a State.
Response: Section 972.204(b) of the final rule, ``Management
systems requirements,'' includes a requirement for the FWS and the FHWA
to develop an implementation plan for each of the management systems.
The plans will include, but are not limited to: Overall goals and
policies concerning the management systems; each agency's
responsibilities for developing and implementing the management
systems; implementation schedule; data sources; and cost estimate.
Other process issues, such as avoiding redundancy, coordination for
data sharing, compatibility of data and systems, and specific data
required to support the management systems can also be addressed in the
implementation plans.
The implementation plans will also provide an opportunity to
clarify the roles and responsibilities of the FWS, the FHWA and the
States. Nothing in the rule is intended to affect a State's or MPO's
role in providing accident or congestion data for its facilities
covered by the management systems. The plans are intended to develop
effective means of collecting and using information to improve
decision-making for the Refuge Road program, and to promote data
sharing. Inclusion of State or MPO data in the management systems does
not assume that the FWS would duplicate the data collection effort
already undertaken by a State or MPO. Emphasis is on the importance of
cooperation and coordination in understanding responsibilities, and
sharing data.
While the FHWA has acknowledged part of the data collection burden
will be a State responsibility, minimizing that burden is a
responsibility of the FWS in its role of establishing and maintaining
the management systems. States will have the opportunity to help
determine how the information is collected and used during the
development of the implementation plans. One important component of the
management systems will be compatibility with existing State systems,
as a means to minimize any additional data collection burden or
duplication of effort.
Implementation--Management System Structure and Data Standards
Comment: The FWS requested clarification of the meaning of the
term, ``as appropriate'' in Sec. 972.212(c) regarding the
consideration and implementation of safety in development and
application of the management systems. The FWS interpretation of the
term would provide for some flexibility in judgment for designing the
management systems to meet the goals, policies and needs of the Refuge
Road program consistent with the intent and requirements of the
proposed rule, as opposed to a rigid application of a one-size-fits-all
approach.
Response: The FHWA agrees with the FWS comment about the need to
clarify the meaning of the term, ``as appropriate'' as applied in the
rule, since it appears numerous times in the rule, in addition to the
section referenced by the FWS. The term, ``as appropriate'' is intended
to provide a certain amount of flexibility for the FWS and the FHWA to
plan for management systems that meet program needs, but also are cost
effective and efficient to implement. To reinforce the need for such
flexibility, the FHWA has revised Sec. 972.204(a) to provide for
professional engineering and planning judgment in determining the
nature and extent of the required management systems coverage.
Comment: The State DOT coalition indicated that it might be unduly
costly to develop a pavement management system for all roads by
including unpaved roads.
Response: For clarification, the FWS pavement management system
limits coverage to paved RR and other associated transportation
facilities.
Section-by-Section Analysis
After careful consideration of the comments received, the FHWA has
modified the final rule to address the FWS concern over the term ``as
appropriate'' in meeting the intent and requirements of the rule. This
section-by-section analysis describes the change.
Section 972.204--Management System Requirements
Comment: The FWS inquired about the intended meaning of the term,
``as appropriate'' as applied in Sec. 972.212(c), since the term was
seemingly applied to this management system, but not all of the others.
Response: The FHWA supports the need to clarify the intended
meaning of the term, ``as appropriate'' as applied, not only in Sec.
972.212(c), but also throughout the FWS management system final rule,
since the term does appear in numerous subsections of the rule. The
term allows some flexibility in designing the management systems to
meet the goals, policies and needs of the FWS for the Refuge Road
program. In addition, the FHWA supports the need and desire for
flexibility in developing and implementing the management systems. To
provide the necessary flexibility, the FHWA has modified the second
sentence of Sec. 972.204(a) by inserting the following after the word
``needs,'' ``* * * using professional engineering and planning judgment
to determine the required nature and extent of systems coverage
consistent with the intent and requirements of this rule.''
Conclusion
The FHWA anticipated public interest in this rulemaking and the
comments to the docket have helped to raise awareness about roles and
responsibilities of all entities involved in the implementation of this
rule that will be important to consider in the development of the
implementation plans and the resulting management systems. These
implementation plans can be an effective tool in avoiding duplication
and redundancy, minimizing the burden on States and other non-Federal
entities, and determining the required extent of management systems
coverage. The FHWA believes that the resulting changes in the final
rule address the questions raised by the FWS and the States, and will
yield enhanced cooperation and coordination in its implementation.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined this final rule is 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 Office of
Management and Budget has reviewed this document under E.O. 12866. The
FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of any action taken in this
rulemaking process will be minimal. The FHWA anticipates that this
final rule will not adversely affect any sector of the economy in a
material way. Though this
[[Page 9486]]
final action 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.
The FHWA has considered the costs and benefits associated with this
rulemaking and the information provided in response to the proposed
rule, and believes the benefits outweigh the costs. Information
provided by the management systems will enhance transportation
investment decisions for the Refuge Road program, and improve the
overall efficiency of the FWS transportation system. In addition, the
management systems will assist the FHWA in its stewardship and
oversight roles. The benefits of the management system information will
be significant in relationship to the costs of implementation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small
entities and has determined that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule will not impose a mandate that requires further
analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4,
March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This final 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 final rule provides for the development and
implementation of pavement, bridge, safety, and congestion management
systems for transportation facilities serving the Refuge System roads
that are funded under the FLHP, therefore, this action is not
considered an unfunded mandate.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This final 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 action will not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this final action will
not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States'
ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
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 final 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 requested that the OMB approve a single information collection
clearance for all of the data in the four management systems at the
time the final rule is published. The FHWA is sponsoring this clearance
on behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The FHWA estimates that a total of 3,700 burden hours will be
imposed on non-Federal entities to provide some of the required safety
and congestion management information. Respondents to this information
collection may include State transportation departments, Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), regional transportation planning
agencies, and county and local governments.
A measurable level of effort may be required of non-Federal
entities to provide management system information for the safety and
congestion management systems. A similar level of effort is not
anticipated for the pavement and bridge management systems, since the
entire RR system is under the jurisdiction of the FWS. The burden on
States will be measurable at a level commensurate with the relatively
modest extent of the RR system. For estimating purposes, each State has
been assigned 26 hours of burden in providing safety information. Thus,
the total annual burden estimate for the safety management system is
1,300 hours.
For implementation of the congestion management system (CMS), the
non-Federal burden, if applicable, would likely fall to the MPOs, and
represents the need for the FLMAs to coordinate their management
systems with the MPOs for that portion of their transportation system
that is within the MPO area. This results in a total annual burden
estimate of 2,400 hours for the FWS CMS.
The State DOT coalition provided comments on the proposed data
collection indicating that the management systems should be implemented
in a way that does not burden States or adversely affect the funding or
other resources available for the State programs. The State DOT
coalition's comments encouraged a cooperative process using approaches
that would avoid redundancy and duplication in implementing the
management systems.
The FHWA anticipated some burden on States and MPOs in the burden
estimates prepared as part of the rulemaking. The State DOT coalition
did not question the need for management systems or the FHWA's burden
estimates. The FHWA believes that the value of the management systems
information for transportation decision-making outweighs the burden of
collecting it. The FHWA has tried to keep the data collection burden to
the lowest level possible, while still providing for the necessary
data, and believes the burden estimates to be fair and equitable. The
Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility to develop the management
systems in a manner that would incorporate any existing data in the
most efficient way and without additional burdens to the public.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that this final rule will not have any effect on the quality
of the environment.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and concluded that the final rule 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 this
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 final rule meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation,
[[Page 9487]]
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
Under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This final 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 final 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 final 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 this final
rule 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, Congestion management, Grant program--transportation,
Highways and roads, Management systems, Pavement management, Public
lands, Safety management, Transportation, Wildlife Refuge roads.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Highway
Administration amends chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below.
Issued on: February 18, 2004.
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
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.
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 mean 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.
[[Page 9488]]
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 decision-making 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 N. 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 is
located within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System and for
which title and maintenance responsibilities are vested in the United
States Government.
Refuge Roads program means the funds allocated each fiscal year, as
described in 23 U.S.C. 202(e) and 23 U.S.C. 204(k).
Refuge Roads transportation improvement program (RRTIP) means a
staged, multiyear, multimodal program of transportation projects for
the Refuge Roads Program consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service
transportation plan and planning processes pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 204(a)
and (k).
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 Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration. 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 the extent appropriate, to develop by rule
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) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
that are 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 using professional
engineering and planning judgment to determine the required nature and
extent of systems coverage consistent with the intent and requirements
of this rule.
(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 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 resource 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 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 is also available
from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Publication Order Dept., P.O. Box 96716,
Washington, DC 20090-6716 or online at http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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,
[[Page 9489]]
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 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, subpart
C);
(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 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.fhwa.dot.gov/media/documents.htm. It is available for
inspection and copying as prescribed at 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 transportation 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
[[Page 9490]]
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, sufficient detail should be
included for each functional classification to provide adequate
information for use in making safety decisions in the RR program.
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 congestion exists at a FWS facility within the boundaries of
a TMA, and the TMA's CMS does not provide coverage of the portions of
the FWS transportation facilities experiencing congestion, the FWS
shall develop a separate CMS to cover those facilities.
(3) For portions of the FWS transportation system outside the
boundaries of TMAs, 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. 04-4054 Filed 2-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-U