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


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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


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

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Your signed, written comments must refer to the docket 
number appearing at the top of this document and you must submit your 
comments to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments will be 
available for examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 
desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wade F. Casey, Federal Lands 
Highway Office, HFL-20, (202) 366-9486; or Ms. Grace Reidy, Office of 
Chief Counsel, HCC-32, (202) 366-6226; Federal Highway Administration, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours are from 
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

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

Background

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

[[Page 7230]]

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

Issues Concerning Funding Availability and Project Eligibility

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

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

2. When will these funds become available?

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

3. When does an eligible project receive funding?

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

4. How long will these funds be available?

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

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

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

6. Which bridges are eligible?

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

7. When is a bridge eligible for replacement?

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

8. When is a bridge eligible for rehabilitation?

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

9. How does ownership impact project selection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7231]]

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

13. When are IRR bridge projects eligible for funding?

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

14. What does a complete application package consist of?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. Could bridge maintenance be performed with these funds?

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

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

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

Funding Procedures for BIA Owned IRR Bbridges

Alternative Procedure No. 1

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

Alternative Procedure No. 2

    Funding and/or programming of construction projects would be based 
on the annual calculation of bridge deck areas for deficient BIA owned 
IRR bridges. This is the same procedure the FHWA uses to distribute 
HBRRP

[[Page 7232]]

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

Alternative Procedure No. 3

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

Alternative Procedure No. 4

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

Alternative Procedure No. 5

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

Funding Procedures for Non-BIA Owned IRR Bridges

Alternative Procedure No. 1

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

Alternative Procedure No. 2

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

Alternative Procedure No. 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7233]]

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

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