[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 112 (Monday, June 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14224]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 13, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 660

[FHWA Docket No. 93-16]
RIN 2125-AD13

 

Forest Highway Portion of Public Lands Highway Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing revised Forest Highway (FH) Program 
regulations to conform to the requirements of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Section 1032 of the 
ISTEA amends, among other things, 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 202 
and 204 to combine the FH category with the public lands highway 
category. The revised regulation will ensure expeditious and proper 
allocation of funds to provide public road access to the National 
Forest System (NFS).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Allen W. Burden, Chief, Program 
and Administration Division, Federal Lands Highway Office, (202) 366-
9488, Mr. Curtis L. Page, Forest Highway Program Engineer, Federal 
Lands Highway Office, (202) 366-9489, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1396, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t., 
Monday through Friday, except legal Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 18, 1991, the President signed 
the ISTEA, Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914. Section 1032 of the 
ISTEA amends 23 U.S.C. 202 and 204 by, among other things, 
incorporating new planning provisions, including metropolitan and 
statewide transportation plan requirements; establishing management 
systems provisions, including highway safety, bridges on and off 
Federal-aid highways, and highway pavements; adding and revising 
definitions for key terms relating to the Federal Lands Highway 
Program; and modifying existing allocation procedures.
    The primary purpose of the Federal Lands Highway Program is to 
provide public road funding to serve the Federal lands outside State or 
local government responsibility. Typically, the facilities serve 
recreational travel and tourism, protect and enhance natural resources, 
provide sustained economic development in rural areas, and provide 
needed transportation for Native Americans.
    The FHWA's partnership with the Forest Service (FS) began in 1916 
when the Federal-Aid Road Act appropriated funds for the construction 
and maintenance of roads and trails serving the national forests. There 
are currently over 25,000 miles of FHs, on State and local 
transportation systems, serving 191 million acres of national forest 
lands in 40 States plus Puerto Rico. These roads connect to the 
approximately 370,000 miles of forest development roads that are under 
the jurisdiction of the FS. The fiscal year 1994 (FY 94) authorization 
for FHs was $113 million. On October 5, 1993, the FHWA published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (58 FR 
51794). The following discussion addresses comments to the NPRM which 
were provided to the FHWA.

Development of Regulations

    The final rule was developed by an interagency task force of the 
FHWA and the FS. The FHWA and the FS considered the comments received 
to the Docket for the regulation in developing the revisions to the 
NPRM for the final rule.

Relationship to Interim Guidance Issued December 26, 1991

    On December 26, 1991, the FHWA issued interim guidance to aid 
States and the FS in complying with the new legislative requirements. 
The guidance was developed in consultation with FS headquarters staff 
and published in the Federal Register at 57 FR 14880 on April 23, 1992. 
This interim guidance is superseded by this regulation.

Conformance

    This final rule is in accordance with part 450 of this title.

Written Comments Received to the Docket

    Six commenters submitted 29 comments to the Docket regarding the 
NPRM. One Federal agency and five State highway agencies (SHAs) 
commented on the NPRM. The majority of commenters offered specific 
suggestions for revisions. Some also offered minor editorial 
corrections and text enhancements. Most of the significant comments 
were directed at Sec. 660.105--Planning and route designation--and at 
Sec. 660.107--Allocations. All comments were considered and have been 
accommodated to the extent practical. In response to these comments, 
the FHWA has developed a final rule. A summary of the specific 
responses to comments raised on individual sections of the NPRM 
follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 660.101  Purpose

    Comment: One commenter expressed the need to better describe the 
importance of the FH Program for access to and management of the NFS 
and its role as an integral part of the Federal Lands Highway Program.
    Response: This section was expanded to better describe how the FH 
Program enhances local, regional, and national benefits of FHs funded 
under the Public Lands Highway category of the coordinated Federal 
Lands Highway Program. The FH Program provides safe and adequate 
transportation access to and through National Forest System (NFS) lands 
for visitors, recreationists, resource users, and others which is not 
met by other transportation programs, assists rural and community 
economic development, and promotes tourism and travel.

Section 660.103  Definitions

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``public 
authority'' be modified so that a public authority would be required to 
meet all authorities noted in the NPRM definition by changing the 
``or'' condition to an ``and'' condition regarding the public 
authority's authority to finance, build, operate, ``or'' maintain toll 
or toll-free facilities.
    Response: Because this definition is a title 23, U.S.C., 
definition, it was not revised, even though the ``and'' condition would 
make it more restrictive. Regulations may clarify or explain, but 
cannot revise, a statutory definition.
    Comment: Another commenter suggested revising the definition of 
``forest road'' to include a road which provides ``access to'' the NFS 
since many FHs in some States do not meet the criteria of a forest road 
as indicated by the proposed definition.
    Response: This is also a title 23, U.S.C., definition and was not 
revised in the final rule. The present wording for the definition of 
``forest road,'' as stated in 23 U.S.C. 101, is: ``The term forest road 
or trail means a road or trail wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, 
and serving the NFS and which is necessary for the protection, 
administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use and development 
of its resources.'' This definition is adequate because a road which 
provides access to the NFS is considered to be serving the NFS. Also, 
the definition for FH allows for roads providing access to the NFS 
since it refers to forest roads, the definition of which allows access 
to the NFS.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``statewide 
transportation plan'' be clarified by adding the phrase ``pursuant to 
the provisions of part 450 of this title'' at the end of the 
definition.
    Response: Similar wording was used in the definition of 
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in this section. Therefore, 
the phrase was added to the end of the definition to clarify it. Also, 
a definition for ``metropolitan transportation plan'' was added to this 
section because the term is used in Sec. 660.105 along with the term 
``statewide transportation plan,'' which is also defined in this 
regulation in Sec. 660.103.

Section 660.105  Planning and Route Designation

    Comment: Several of the SHAs expressed the need for clarification 
of who provides transportation planning, FS resource planning, and 
management systems information to the States and MPOs for incorporation 
into the MPOs and transportation improvement programs (TIPs).
    Response: Some minor wording changes were made to paragraph (a) of 
this section to reflect the fact that the FS will provide resource 
planning and related transportation information to the ``appropriate'' 
MPO in accordance with part 450 of this title. This clarification was 
needed because there are numerous MPOs within some States and the FS 
should direct the information only to the MPO needing the information.
    Comment: Two of the SHAs felt that paragraph (b) should be 
clarified to delineate the reporting responsibilities for management 
information systems. One felt the final rule should specify that the 
State would be responsible for pavement, bridge, and safety management 
systems where the FH is also a State highway and that cities and 
counties would be responsible for those management systems where FHs 
are under city or county jurisdiction. The FS would then be responsible 
for those management systems on all other applicable roads.
    Response: Title 23, U.S.C., 303 requires the States to develop and 
implement systems for managing highway pavements of Federal-aid 
highways (pavement management systems), bridges on and off Federal-aid 
highways (bridge management systems), and highway safety for all public 
roads (safety management systems). The results of bridge management 
systems and safety management systems on all FHs and results of 
pavement management systems for FHs on Federal-aid highways are to be 
provided by the SHAs for consideration in the development of programs 
under Sec. 660.109 of this part. The FHWA will provide appropriate 
pavement management results for FHs which are not Federal-aid highways. 
The last two sentences in paragraph (b) were reworded to clarify these 
procedures and be more in concert with 23 U.S.C. 204(a).
    Comment: Two SHAs pointed out the inappropriate reference to the 
``Federal-aid system'' in paragraph (b) when describing who reports 
pavement management systems results for FHs.
    Response: The language of the final rule was revised to refer to 
``forest highways which are not Federal-aid highways'' rather than to 
``forest highways off the Federal-aid system.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended that paragraph (c)(1) be 
clarified by adding the word ``forest'' before the word ``roads'' to be 
more consistent with previous definitions and to clarify candidate 
roads for nomination. This would clarify the fact that the SHA and the 
FS will nominate ``forest'' roads, not just any roads, for FH 
designation. The FH definition also references forest roads.
    Response: Paragraph (c)(1) was revised to make this clarification.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the order of the three 
criteria for designating FHs in paragraph (d)(1) should be revised to 
add greater emphasis to the serving of access needs of the NFS.
    Response: This comment was accepted. The order of the three items 
was revised.

Section 660.107  Allocations

    Comment: One commenter noted the restrictiveness of the NPRM in 
that it limits the funding of the allocated portion of the Public Lands 
Highway Program exclusively to FHs. The commenter further pointed out 
that the 1991 ISTEA amended 23 U.S.C. 202 by striking the subsection 
that dealt with FHs as a part of the Public Lands Highway Program with 
the result that, according to the commenter, one-third of the allocated 
program may be spent on highways other than FHs. Under this broader 
definition of Public Lands Highways, the States would have the 
flexibility to spend the allocated portion of PLH funds on all kinds of 
highways such as the Bureau of Land Management roads and even Indian 
Reservation Roads. The ``equal consideration'' language of the ISTEA, 
in the commenter's view, would allow for at least half of the allocated 
funds to be spent on such roads while the NPRM language restricts the 
allocated portion to FHs only.
    Response: The conference report on ISTEA states that ``Sixty-six 
percent of the public lands highway account shall be allocated to the 
Forest Service regional offices for use in 41 States based on the FH 
criteria. The remaining 34 percent shall be allocated by the Secretary 
based on national competition for other forest or public lands 
highways.'' (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 404, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 331 
(1991).) Therefore, the interpretation of 23 U.S.C. 202(b) is as 
follows:
    1. Thirty-four percent of the public lands highway funds shall be 
allocated in a discretionary manner, giving preference to States that 
contain at least 3 percent of the total public lands in the nation.
    2. Sixty-six percent of the public lands highway funds are to be 
allocated to the FS Regions in accordance with section 134 of the 
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 
(STURAA) (Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132, 173). Section 134 pertained to 
the allocation of FH funds, which is part of the Public Lands Highway 
category. Therefore, the language of this section was not changed.
    Comment: Two of the SHAs took exception to the fact that this 
section requires the allocation of Public Lands Highway Funds by FS 
Region, citing an apparent inconsistency with section 134 of the STURAA 
which allocates ``for expenditure in each State.'' It was suggested 
that, for some States which have more than one FS Region, allocation by 
FS Region potentially creates difficulties, such as competition or 
conflicts between States, and that FH funds should continue to be 
allocated as outlined in the STURAA. Also, because the ISTEA requires 
that all FS projects be included in each State's ``Statewide 
Transportation Improvement Program'' (STIP), allocation of funds by 
State would make it easier for each State to project available funding 
and projects for inclusion in its STIP.
    Response: The NPRM may have given the appearance that the 
allocation method is being changed. Actually, the NPRM proposed to 
continue with the same FH allocation method which has been in existence 
since FY 85. If FH funds were to be allocated to the States, 34 States 
would have their ``hold harmless'' funds reduced by an aggregate total 
of approximately $90 million per year (based on FY 94 allocation 
amounts). This represents nearly 85 percent of the total FY 94 FH funds 
allocation. The regulation will continue with the allocation in its 
present form.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the word ``elements,'' used 
in the NPRM to state that the allocation of funds for FHs uses values 
based on relative transportation needs of the various elements of the 
NFS, should be replaced with the word ``resources.'' The commenter 
pointed out that the word ``element'' is used in the definition of 
renewable resources and could be construed to limit allocations based 
on renewable resources only. The commenter also believes the term 
``resources'' was defined to include both renewable and nonrenewable 
resources and is more appropriate to use in defining the allocation 
process.
    Response: This wording was carried forward from the previous 
wording of the existing regulation. However, the sentence was clarified 
by deleting the entire phrase ``the various elements of,'' thereby 
eliminating the need for referring to either ``resources'' or 
``elements.'' It now refers only to ``using values based on relative 
transportation needs of the NFS.''

Section 660.109  Program Development

    Comment: One commenter proposed that a seventh FH project selection 
criterion should be added to the existing six criteria in paragraph (a) 
of this section. The new criterion, which would read: ``The results for 
forest highways from the pavement, bridge, and safety management 
systems'' is needed to comply with Sec. 660.105(b) of this part, which 
discusses the management systems required under 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135. 
It would also have to be consistent with any changes made in 23 U.S.C. 
105.
    Response: Because management systems provide input to 
transportation planning and the TIP, this seventh criterion was added 
to the final rule as worded above.
    Comment: One of the SHAs noted that the NPRM, in paragraph (a), 
stated that: ``The FHWA will arrange and conduct a conference with the 
FS and the State Highway Agency (SHA) to jointly select the projects 
which will be included in the programs. * * *'' The commenter stated 
that cooperators (agencies) with jurisdiction over the FHs under 
consideration should be included in this conference to enhance the 
regional planning aspect for these projects.
    Response: Under current procedures, the State represents the 
interests of the cooperators. The program meetings are always open to 
interested cooperators who may wish to attend. The States may invite 
cooperators to the meetings, if they wish. Thus, there is no need to 
change the wording of the NPRM.
    Comment: The previous commenter also called attention to paragraph 
(a) of the NPRM which stated that the FS and the SHA will ``jointly 
select the projects which will be included in the programs for the 
current fiscal year and at least the next 4 years.'' The commenter 
recommended that, since the projects selected will ultimately be added 
to the STIP, the planning and selection of FH projects should cover the 
same timeframe as the STIP.
    Response: Generally, at least 5 years are needed to identify early 
environmental and other preliminary engineering required to ensure 
meeting the schedule to advance a project to construction. The proposed 
FH timeframe is consistent with this since the TIP generally shows 3 
years of the 5-year FH program. Thus, there is no need to change the 
wording of the NPRM.
    Comment: One commenter requested that, in paragraph (b) of this 
section, the term ``recommended,'' as used in the first sentence, ``The 
recommended program will be prepared by the FHWA and concurred in by 
the FS and the SHA,'' should be replaced with the term ``selected.'' 
This would more accurately reflect the current procedure, as stated in 
paragraph (a), that the FHWA, the FS, and the SHA will ``jointly select 
the projects,'' not just recommend them. One of the SHAs felt the 
second sentence should be revised to read, ``The FHWA will approve the 
program `only when there is concurrence by the FS and the SHA.''' 
Otherwise, the FHWA could conceivably approve the program without 
waiting for concurrence by the other two agencies.
    Response: A review of this section indicated that the wording of 
the NPRM may still create some confusion, even with the recommended 
word changes, because the first two sentences of paragraph (b) state 
that ``The recommended program will be prepared by the FHWA and 
concurred in by the FS and the SHA'' and that ``The FHWA will approve 
the program.'' This would make it appear that the FHWA simply prepares 
and approves its own program. Consequently, the wording of the first 
sentence of this paragraph was revised to read: ``The recommended 
program will be prepared and approved by the FHWA with concurrence by 
the FS and the SHA.'' The second sentence was deleted.
    Comment: One commenter pointed out that the term ``incorporate,'' 
as used in the third sentence of NPRM paragraph (b), which states that 
``the SHA shall advise any other cooperators in the State of the 
projects included in the final program and shall incorporate the 
approved program into the STIP,'' seems vague. It appears to imply that 
the approved FH program is independent of the regional and statewide 
STIP planning requirements of the ISTEA. The commenter felt that, 
although this may be the correct way to handle a program of this 
nature, the process required to ``incorporate'' the final program into 
the STIP should be clarified.
    Response: This sentence was clarified by adding the following 
phrase to the end of the sentence: ``And shall include the approved 
program in the State's process for development of the STIP.''

Section 660.111  Agreements

    Comment: One commenter felt that the 41 statewide FH agreements 
currently in effect between the FHWA and the States (including Puerto 
Rico) should be updated and made into tri-party agreements with the 
FHWA, the FS, and the SHA. This would perpetuate the ``partnership'' 
spirit of the ISTEA and facilitate cooperation among the three 
agencies. It would also eliminate separate agreements between the FS 
and the SHA and between the FHWA and the SHA in each State. The wording 
of this section should be revised by inserting the words ``the Forest 
Service'' where necessary, such as after the word ``FHWA'' in paragraph 
(a), to include the FS as a signatory agency to the agreements.
    Response: Because there are some overall FH procedures that not 
only involve the SHAs, but the FS as well, tri-party agreements among 
the FHWA, the FS, and the SHA will be a requirement in the final rule. 
Because the FHWA and the FS already have separate two-party FH program 
agreements for all 40 States, plus Puerto Rico, and because the FHWA 
does not want to delay the FH program until all new tri-party 
agreements are executed, the first sentence of this section of the NPRM 
was revised to delete the phrase ``prior to the expenditure of any 
funds by the FHWA in the State.''

Section 660.112  Project Development

    Comment: One commenter suggested that, in the first sentence of 
paragraph (a), the phrase ``or a public authority'' should be added 
after the words ``Projects will be administered by the FHWA.'' This 
would acknowledge that the FS may, in some cases, administer the design 
and construction of FH projects. The same commenter also suggested 
adding the phrase ``and procedures documented in the statewide 
agreement'' to the end of the sentence to allow for items included in 
statewide agreements to supplement Federal-aid procedures, where 
appropriate.
    Response: Because the FS wants to be able to administer FH 
projects, this sentence was reworded to add the words ``or the FS'' 
instead of ``or a public authority.'' Also, the phrase ``and procedures 
documented in the statewide agreement'' was added to the end of the 
sentence. This will allow the parties to determine the procedures to be 
followed in a State.

Section 660.113  Construction

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the words ``a public 
authority'' be substituted for ``cooperator'' in paragraph (b) of this 
section. This would allow the FS to perform construction, if 
appropriate. Cooperators would still be included since they are, by 
definition, a public authority.
    Response: Because other public authorities that might potentially 
be involved in a project would also be cooperators, the word 
``cooperator'' was kept in the sentence in paragraph (b). However, by 
adding the words ``the FS'' after FHWA, the FS will be explicitly 
allowed to perform construction, if appropriate. Also, paragraph (c), 
which deals with final acceptance of the project, was revised to 
clarify the intent. The word ``construction'' was retained in the 
language to differentiate acceptance of the construction work (for the 
purpose of releasing the contractor) from that of acceptance of the 
entire project, including any extra work required to resolve 
noncontractor-related matters.

Section 660.115  Maintenance

    Comment: In dealing with the same issue discussed in the previous 
section, as to what constitutes final acceptance of a project, it was 
suggested by one commenter that the word ``construction'' be deleted to 
avoid confusion.
    Response: The term ``construction'' is not incorrect in the context 
of this paragraph, because it describes the type of acceptance being 
made. However, the entire sentence was reworded to clarify and minimize 
possible confusion. By referencing Sec. 660.113(c), which includes the 
word ``construction,'' the meaning of the term ``construction 
acceptance'' was retained.

Section 660.117  Funding, Records and Accounting

    Comment: One commenter suggested deleting the phrase ``and the 
SHAs'' from paragraph (e).
    Response: Because the term ``cooperators'' includes SHAs, the 
phrase was considered redundant and, therefore, deleted.
    Comment: One commenter suggested adding the word ``Generally'' at 
the beginning of the sentence in paragraph (f) to allow for those 
special cases where cash is not obtained in advance of construction 
procurement.
    Response: Adding the word ``generally'' to the sentence makes the 
requirement too much less restrictive. Instead, the following phrase 
was added to the end of the last sentence: ``Unless otherwise specified 
in a project agreement.'' Also, the word ``shall'' was changed to 
``should'' to allow more flexibility.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices; Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 
Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not major within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of 
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is 
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be 
minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. This 
rule merely requires the States and Federal agencies to conform to the 
requirements of the ISTEA. The requirements are basically incremental 
to what the States and Federal agencies are required to do under the 
new ISTEA provisions, such as incorporating new planning provisions, 
including metropolitan and statewide transportation plan requirements; 
and establishing management systems provisions, including highway 
safety, bridges on and off Federal-aid highways, and highway pavements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on 
small entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that 
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The revised regulation will not 
directly affect small businesses because the regulation applies only to 
Federal agency, State, and local government transportation programs. 
However, a minor positive secondary effect may result from the 
employment of small businesses, such as engineering consultant firms, 
to implement some of the planning and management systems required by 
the ISTEA.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

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

    This action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of 
the environment.

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 660

    Forest highways, Highways and roads, Public lands highways.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending chapter 1 
of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 660, subpart A as set 
forth below.

    Issued on: June 6, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.

PART 660--SPECIAL PROGRAMS (DIRECT FEDERAL)

    1. Part 660, subpart A is revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--Forest Highways

Sec.
660.101  Purpose.
660.103  Definitions.
660.105  Planning and route designation.
660.107  Allocations.
660.109  Program development.
660.111  Agreements.
660.112  Project development.
660.113  Construction.
660.115  Maintenance.
660.117  Funding, records and accounting.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1608-1610; 23 U.S.C. 101, 202, 204, and 
315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Subpart A--Forest Highways


Sec. 660.101   Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to implement the Forest Highway (FH) 
Program which enhances local, regional, and national benefits of FHs 
funded under the public lands highway category of the coordinated 
Federal Lands Highway Program. As provided in 23 U.S.C. 202, 203, and 
204, the program, developed in cooperation with State and local 
agencies, provides safe and adequate transportation access to and 
through National Forest System (NFS) lands for visitors, 
recreationists, resource users, and others which is not met by other 
transportation programs. Forest highways assist rural and community 
economic development and promote tourism and travel.


Sec. 660.103   Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), the following 
apply to this subpart:
    Cooperator means a non-Federal public authority which has 
jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility for a FH.
    Forest highway means a forest road under the jurisdiction of, and 
maintained by, a public authority and open to public travel.
    Forest road means a road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, 
and serving the NFS and which is necessary for the protection, 
administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use and development 
of its resources.
    Jurisdiction means the legal right or authority to control, 
operate, regulate use of, maintain, or cause to be maintained, a 
transportation facility, through ownership or delegated authority. The 
authority to construct or maintain such a facility may be derived from 
fee title, easement, written authorization, or permit from a Federal 
agency, or some similar method.
    Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) means that organization 
designated as the forum for cooperative transportation decisionmaking 
pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this title.
    Metropolitan Transportation Plan means the official intermodal 
transportation plan that is developed and adopted through the 
metropolitan transportation planning process for the metropolitan 
planning area.
    National Forest System means lands and facilities administered by 
the Forest Service (FS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, as set forth 
in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1601 note, 1600-1614).
    Open to public travel means except during scheduled periods, 
extreme weather conditions, or emergencies, open to the general public 
for use with a standard passenger auto, without restrictive gates or 
prohibitive signs or regulations, other than for general traffic 
control or restrictions based on size, weight, or class of 
registration.
    Public authority means a Federal, State, county, town, or township, 
Indian tribe, municipal or other local government or instrumentality 
with authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or toll-
free facilities.
    Public lands highway means: (1) A forest road under the 
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public 
travel or (2) any highway through unappropriated or unreserved public 
lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other Federal reservations under the 
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public 
travel.
    Public road means any road or street under the jurisdiction of and 
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel.
    Renewable resources means those elements within the scope of 
responsibilities and authorities of the FS as defined in the Forest and 
Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (88 Stat. 
476) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of October 22, 
1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) such as recreation, 
wilderness, wildlife and fish, range, timber, land, water, and human 
and community development.
    Resources means those renewable resources defined above, plus other 
nonrenewable resources such as minerals, oil, and gas which are 
included in the FS's planning and land management processes.
    Statewide transportation plan means the official transportation 
plan that is: (1) Intermodal in scope, including bicycle and pedestrian 
features, (2) addresses at least a 20-year planning horizon, and (3) 
covers the entire State pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this 
title.


Sec. 660.105   Planning and route designation.

    (a) The FS will provide resource planning and related 
transportation information to the appropriate MPO and/or State Highway 
Agency (SHA) for use in developing metropolitan and statewide 
transportation plans pursuant to the provisions of part 450 of this 
title. Cooperators shall provide various planning (23 U.S.C. 134 and 
135) information to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for 
coordination with the FS.
    (b) The management systems required under 23 U.S.C. 303 shall 
fulfill the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 204(a) regarding the establishment 
and implementation of pavement, bridge, and safety management systems 
for FHs. The results of bridge management systems and safety management 
systems on all FHs and results of pavement management systems for FHs 
on Federal-aid highways are to be provided by the SHAs for 
consideration in the development of programs under Sec. 660.109 of this 
part. The FHWA will provide appropriate pavement management results for 
FHs which are not Federal-aid highways.
    (c) The FHWA, in consultation with the FS, the SHA, and other 
cooperators where appropriate, will designate FHs.
    (1) The SHA and the FS will nominate forest roads for FH 
designation.
    (2) The SHA will represent the interests of all cooperators. All 
other agencies shall send their proposals for FHs to the SHA.
    (d) A FH will meet the following criteria:
    (1) Generally, it is under the jurisdiction of a public authority 
and open to public travel, or a cooperator has agreed, in writing, to 
assume jurisdiction of the facility and to keep the road open to public 
travel once improvements are made.
    (2) It provides a connection between adequate and safe public roads 
and the resources of the NFS which are essential to the local, 
regional, or national economy, and/or the communities, shipping points, 
or markets which depend upon those resources.
    (3) It serves:
    (i) Traffic of which a preponderance is generated by use of the NFS 
and its resources; or
    (ii) NFS-generated traffic volumes that have a substantial impact 
on roadway design and construction; or
    (iii) Other local needs such as schools, mail delivery, commercial 
supply, and access to private property within the NFS.


Sec. 660.107  Allocations.

    On October 1 of each fiscal year, the FHWA will allocate 66 percent 
of Public Lands Highway funds, by FS Region, for FHs using values based 
on relative transportation needs of the NFS, after deducting such sums 
as deemed necessary for the administrative requirements of the FHWA and 
the FS; the necessary costs of FH planning studies; and the FH share of 
costs for approved Federal Lands Coordinated Technology Implementation 
Program studies.


Sec. 660.109  Program development.

    (a) The FHWA will arrange and conduct a conference with the FS and 
the SHA to jointly select the projects which will be included in the 
programs for the current fiscal year and at least the next 4 years. 
Projects included in each year's program will be selected considering 
the following criteria:
    (1) The development, utilization, protection, and administration of 
the NFS and its resources;
    (2) The enhancement of economic development at the local, regional, 
and national level, including tourism and recreational travel;
    (3) The continuity of the transportation network serving the NFS 
and its dependent communities;
    (4) The mobility of the users of the transportation network and the 
goods and services provided;
    (5) The improvement of the transportation network for economy of 
operation and maintenance and the safety of its users;
    (6) The protection and enhancement of the rural environment 
associated with the NFS and its resources; and
    (7) The results for FHs from the pavement, bridge, and safety 
management systems.
    (b) The recommended program will be prepared and approved by the 
FHWA with concurrence by the FS and the SHA. Following approval, the 
SHA shall advise any other cooperators in the State of the projects 
included in the final program and shall include the approved program in 
the State's process for development of the Statewide Transportation 
Improvement Program. For projects located in metropolitan areas, the 
FHWA and the SHA will work with the MPO to incorporate the approved 
program into the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program.


Sec. 660.111  Agreements.

    (a) A statewide FH agreement shall be executed among the FHWA, the 
FS, and each SHA. This agreement shall set forth the responsibilities 
of each party, including that of adherence to the applicable provisions 
of Federal and State statutes and regulations.
    (b) The design and construction of FH projects will be administered 
by the FHWA unless otherwise provided for in an agreement approved 
under this subpart.
    (c) A project agreement shall be entered into between the FHWA and 
the cooperator involved under one or more of the following conditions:
    (1) A cooperator's funds are to be made available for the project 
or any portion of the project;
    (2) Federal funds are to be made available to a cooperator for any 
work;
    (3) Special circumstances exist which make a project agreement 
necessary for payment purposes or to clarify any aspect of the project; 
or
    (4) It is necessary to document jurisdiction and maintenance 
responsibility.


Sec. 660.112  Project development.

    (a) Projects to be administered by the FHWA or the FS will be 
developed in accordance with FHWA procedures for the Federal Lands 
Highway Program. Projects to be administered by a cooperator shall be 
developed in accordance with Federal-aid procedures and procedures 
documented in the statewide agreement.
    (b) The FH projects shall be designed in accordance with part 625 
of this chapter or those criteria specifically approved by the FHWA for 
a particular project.


Sec. 660.113  Construction.

    (a) No construction shall be undertaken on any FH project until 
plans, specifications, and estimates have been concurred in by the 
cooperator(s) and the FS, and approved in accordance with procedures 
contained in the statewide FH agreement.
    (b) The construction of FHs will be performed by the contract 
method, unless construction by the FHWA, the FS, or a cooperator on its 
own account is warranted under 23 U.S.C. 204(e).
    (c) Prior to final construction acceptance by the contracting 
authority, the project shall be inspected by the cooperator, the FS, 
and the FHWA to identify and resolve any mutual concerns.


Sec. 660.115  Maintenance.

    The cooperator having jurisdiction over a FH shall, upon acceptance 
of the project in accordance with Sec. 660.113(c), assume operation 
responsibilities and maintain, or cause to be maintained, any project 
constructed under this subpart.


Sec. 660.117  Funding, records and accounting.

    (a) The Federal share of funding for eligible FH projects may be 
any amount up to and including 100 percent. A cooperator may 
participate in the cost of project development and construction, but 
participation shall not be required.
    (b) Funds for FHs may be used for:
    (1) Planning;
    (2) Federal Lands Highway research;
    (3) Preliminary and construction engineering; and
    (4) Construction.
    (c) Funds for FHs may be made available for the following 
transportation-related improvement purposes which are generally part of 
a transportation construction project:
    (1) Transportation planning for tourism and recreational travel;
    (2) Adjacent vehicular parking areas;
    (3) Interpretive signage;
    (4) Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or 
historic sites;
    (5) Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles;
    (6) Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas 
including sanitary and water facilities; and
    (7) Other appropriate public road facilities as approved by the 
FHWA.
    (d) Use of FH funds for right-of-way acquisition shall be subject 
to specific approval by the FHWA.
    (e) Cooperators which administer construction of FH projects shall 
maintain their FH records according to 49 CFR part 18.
    (f) Funds provided to the FHWA by a cooperator should be received 
in advance of construction procurement unless otherwise specified in a 
project agreement.

[FR Doc. 94-14224 Filed 6-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P