[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38565-38575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 661

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-4743]
RIN 2125-AE57


Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

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 (FLH), 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 FLH and the BIADOT, in 
consultation with Indian tribal governments (ITG)s and other public 
commenters, have developed interim project selection/fund allocation 
procedures for uniform application of the legislation. In this 
document, the FHWA is announcing interim project selection/fund 
allocation procedures for the IRRBP.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 19, 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, HFPD-9, (202) 366-9486; or Ms. Grace Reidy, Office of Chief 
Counsel, HCC-32, (202) 366-6226; Federal Highway Administration, 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.

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

    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 beginning with FY1998 and continuing through 
FY2003, 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 plans, specifications, and 
estimates (PS&E) by the Secretary.
    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, codified at 23 U.S.C. 202(d)(4)(A), and in order to 
promptly address the deficient IRR bridges, the FHWA and the BIADOT, in 
consultation with Indian tribal governments (ITG)s and other interested 
parties, have developed project selection/fund allocation procedures 
which will be incorporated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as 
an interim final rule.

Comments Received on the IRRBP

    The FHWA solicited comments through informal meetings with tribal 
representatives in early December, 1998. A two page summary requesting 
comment on interim guidance was provided to the tribal representatives 
and also sent out to tribes not in attendance at those meetings. The 
two page summary was forwarded via the tribal local technical 
assistance program centers and the BIA area offices to Indian tribal 
governments( ITG)s. Following this, the FHWA published a notice in the 
Federal Register on February 12, 1999, requesting comments on the 
project selection/fund allocation procedures being considered for the 
IRRBP. The notice provided for a 30-day public comment period ending 
March 15, 1999. Comments were received from five ITGs, seven Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA) offices, one county, and one State Department of 
Transportation. The FHWA considered all comments

[[Page 38566]]

received in developing project selection/fund allocation procedures 
that are set forth in this notice as interim final rules for the IRRBP.
    While FHWA is issuing these interim final rules to make funds 
available as soon as possible this fiscal year, we welcome any comments 
on them. As discussed subsequently in the ``RULEMAKING ANALYSES'' 
portion of this preamble, there exists good cause in this instance for 
adopting interim final rules to ensure that funds may be readily 
dispersed under the IRRBP. We emphasize that the rule adopted here will 
be ``interim'' in nature. Prior to issuance of the final rule, the FHWA 
will invite and actively consider comments introduced concerning this 
action and will assess how the IRRBP is working, including the fund 
allocation process based on experience with these rules. As the FHWA 
gathers more experience and feedback with the project selection/fund 
allocation process under the interim final rules, the FHWA will revisit 
the funding allocation process and propose appropriate changes as 
necessary to insure the operational effectiveness of the IRRBP. The 
FHWA intends to fully utilize IRRBP funds and to continually monitor 
the performance of the program to insure that all IRRBP funds are fully 
utilized. The funding allocation procedures will be influenced by our 
experience under these interim final rules.
    Comments introduced in response to general issues concerning the 
IRRBP raised in the prior notice are addressed in the Section-by-
Section Analysis, that follows.

Section-by-Section Analysis

1. What is the Total Funding Available for the IRR Bridge Program? 
(Sec. 661.15)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Three 
commenters indicated that they mostly agree, generally agree or that no 
comment was necessary.
    FHWA Position: Total funding available for the IRR Bridge Program 
remains unchanged from that set forth in the prior notice since funding 
is that specifically prescribed by statute. The statute provides a 
total program funding of not less than $13 million for each fiscal 
year.

2. When Will These Funds Become Available? (Sec. 661.17)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Two 
commenters indicated that they mostly agree or generally agree.
    FHWA Position: The statute states that these funds become available 
on October 1 of each fiscal year.

3. When Does an Eligible Project Receive Funding? (Sec. 661.19)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Two 
commenters indicated that they mostly agree or generally agree.
    FHWA Position: The statute provides that these funds are provided 
after the Secretary of Transportation approves a completed PS&E.

4. How Long Will These Funds be Available? (Sec. 661.21)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Three 
commenters indicated that they mostly agree, generally agree or that no 
comment was necessary.
    FHWA Position: The statute 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? (Sec. 661.23)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Three 
commenters indicated that they mostly agree, generally agree or that no 
comment was necessary.
    FHWA Position: 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, including multiple pipe culverts.

6. Which Bridges are Eligible? (Sec. 661.25)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Five 
commenters indicated that they mostly agree, generally agree, agree or 
that no comment was necessary regarding including the 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.
    FHWA Position: We modified our position announced in the prior 
notice that any bridges constructed within the last ten years be 
excluded from the program. This position is consistent with FHWA 
policy. It reads as follows. 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), recognition 
of the need for all Federal roads to be treated under uniform policies 
that apply to Federal-aid highways, if a bridge has been constructed, 
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? (Sec. 661.27)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Four 
commenters indicated that they generally agree or agree with the 
eligibility requirements for bridge replacement.
    FHWA Position: As discussed in the previous notice, given that 23 
U.S.C. 204(a) recognizes the need for all Federal roads to be treated 
under uniform policies that apply to Federal-aid highways, to be 
eligible for replacement, the bridge must be considered deficient for 
reasons of structural deficiency or functional obsolescence. The bridge 
also must have a sufficiency rating of less than 50 to be eligible for 
replacement.
    The BIA Navajo Area Office felt that the procedures should include 
a provision for replacement of deficient bridges which otherwise would 
be only eligible for rehabilitation, in cases where a section of 
roadway is reconstructed to meet current roadway standards.
    FHWA Response: The proposed procedures allow for a deficient 
bridge, which is eligible for rehabilitation, to be replaced if the 
total life cycle costs for rehabilitation exceed the replacement costs. 
Hence, when a bridge is eligible for replacement it would be upgraded 
to meet current standards.
    Another commenter, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, wanted a 
definition for functional obsolescence.
    FHWA Response: A functional obsolete bridge is one in which the 
deck geometry, load carrying capacity (comparison of the original 
design load to the State legal load), clearance, or approach roadway 
alignment no longer meets the usual criteria for the system of which it 
is an integral part. We will include this definition in the rules at 
Sec. 661.5.

8. When is a Bridge Eligible for Rehabilitation? (Sec. 661.29)

    The majority of commenters generally agree with the eligibility 
requirements for bridge rehabilitation.
    FHWA Position: As discussed in the prior notice, for reasons 
corresponding

[[Page 38567]]

to those addressed in item 7 concerning replacement eligibility, to be 
eligible for rehabilitation, a bridge must be considered deficient for 
reasons of structural deficiency or functional obsolescence. Also, a 
bridge must have a sufficiency rating of less than or equal to 80 to be 
eligible for rehabilitation. A bridge would be eligible for replacement 
if the total life cycle cost for bridge rehabilitation exceeds the 
costs to replace.
    The BIA Phoenix Area Office commented that the IRRBP should only 
address bridges with sufficiency ratings (SR) under 50 at this time.
    FHWA Response: The IRRBP was established to reduce the number of 
deficient IRR bridges. In addition to bridges with SR less than 50, the 
IRRBP would include IRR bridges having a sufficiency rating of 80 or 
less and having a status of either structurally deficient (SD) or 
functionally obsolete (FO), assuming that the bridge meets the other 
eligibility requirements of the IRRBP.

9. How Does Ownership Impact Project Selection? (Sec. 661.31)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue.
    FHWA Position: As discussed in the prior notice, since the Federal 
government has both a trust responsibility and owns the BIA bridges on 
Indian reservations, 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.
    On this question four commenters wanted to see all IRRBP funds 
going toward BIA owned IRR bridges.
    FHWA Response: The IRRBP was established to reduce the number of 
deficient IRR bridges, not just BIA owned IRR bridges.
    The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians commented that ownership 
should not be an issue.
    FHWA Response: ITGs do provide input as to what bridges are to be 
chosen for rehabilitation or replacement following eligibility 
requirements for the IRRBP, regardless of who owns the bridge. However, 
ownership is an issue since the State and counties have ownership and 
primary responsibility for their bridges. Therefore, a smaller 
percentage of available funds has been set aside for non-BIA IRR 
bridges, since States and counties have access to Federal-aid and other 
funding to replace and rehabilitate their bridges and because 23 U.S.C. 
204(c) requires that IRR funds be supplemental to and not in lieu of 
other funds apportioned to the State. For these reasons, the IRRBP 
should not fully fund non-BIA owned IRR bridges.

10. Do IRRBP Projects Have to be on a Transportation Improvement 
Program (TIP)? (Sec. 661.33)

    The majority of commenters made no remark on this issue. Three 
commenters indicated that they agree with the discussion in our prior 
notice.
    FHWA Position: As discussed in the prior notice, 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? 
(Sec. 661.35)

    The majority of the commenters wanted to see 100 percent of the 
IRRBP funds going toward BIA owned IRR bridges.
    FHWA Response: The statute established this program for deficient 
IRR bridges and did not simply prescribe the IRRBP funds for sole use 
on BIA owned IRR bridges.
    The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians commented that there should be 
no distinction in ownership. Another commenter, Isabella County in 
Michigan, felt that non-BIA IRR bridges serve Tribal communities and to 
limit the annual funding for these bridges would be a disservice to the 
Tribal community.
    FHWA Response: While the Federal government has both a trust 
responsibility and ownership of the BIA bridges on Indian reservations, 
States and counties also have a responsibility and themselves own other 
IRR bridges. Therefore, the IRRBP which is funded exclusively by the 
Federal government, should not bear the full burden of rehabilitation 
and replacement costs associated with non-BIA owned IRR bridges. 
Ownership is relevant in determining the percentage of funding for non-
BIA IRR bridges and is an issue since the States and counties have 
ownership and primary responsibility for their bridges.
    The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan stated that the 
eastern tribes were being penalized.
    FHWA Response: Under the former ``not less than 1 percent'' Highway 
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP), funding was 
State specific and the bulk of funding was provided for the tribes east 
of the Mississippi River. The IRRBP is correcting an inequity that the 
HBRRP created. Under the IRRBP, funding is not State specific, but can 
be used in any State. The only tribes that are penalized are ones which 
fail to submit PS&E packages for IRRBP funding.
    The Cherokee Nation commented that the Oklahoma tribes are not 
treated fairly under the proposed procedures.
    FHWA Response: While the 80-20 split is designed to provide the 
bulk of the funding for BIA bridges, it also takes into account the 
need to fund non-BIA owned IRR bridges. The $2.6 million provided each 
fiscal year (1998-2003) will enable the elimination of numerous 
deficient non-BIA owned IRR bridges in Oklahoma or any other State 
regardless of geographic location to the extent ITGs are willing to 
participate. Presently there is $5.2 million available for non-BIA 
owned IRR bridges under the 80-20 split approach (representing FY 1998 
and FY 1999 available funds).
    We modified our position announced in the prior notice to provide 
carryover funding for non-BIA owned IRR bridges from one fiscal year to 
the next, to provide a uniform carryover policy for both BIA and non-
BIA owned IRR bridges. It reads as follows. Up to 80 percent ($10.4 
million) of funding in any fiscal year would be available for use on 
BIA owned IRR bridges. This would leave 20 percent ($2.6 million) of 
funding in any fiscal year that would be available for use on non-BIA 
owned IRR bridges. A smaller percentage of available funds has been set 
aside for non-BIA IRR bridges, since States and counties have access to 
Federal-aid and other funding to replace and rehabilitate their bridges 
and that 23 U.S.C. 204(c) requires that IRR funds be supplemental to 
and not in lieu of other funds apportioned to the State. The program 
policy will be to maximize the number of IRR bridges participating in 
the IRRBP in a given fiscal year regardless of ownership.

12. What Percent of a Specific Project's Construction Costs is Covered 
Under This Program? (Sec. 661.37)

    The majority of commenters had no remark on this issue.
    FHWA position: As discussed in our prior notice, the following 
funding provisions apply in administration of the IRRBP: (i) 100 
percent funding would be provided for a BIA owned IRR bridge; (ii) up 
to 80 percent of the funding would be provided for a State, county, 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 funding ceiling for any 
single non-BIA

[[Page 38568]]

IRR bridge project would be $1.5 million.
    Addressing this question, four commenters wanted to see 100 percent 
of funding going towards BIA owned IRR bridges.
    FHWA Response: We recognize the need to include non-BIA owned IRR 
bridges in this program since the statute does not exclude them.
    The Pueblo of Zuni commented that they wanted to see the 80 percent 
for non-BIA owned IRR bridges changed to 75 percent.
    FHWA Response: The 80-20 split is consistent with other FHWA 
programs and we believe that this allocation of funds is reasonable.
    Another commenter, the BIA Great Lakes Agency, recommended changing 
the funding ceiling for any single non-BIA IRR bridge project from $1.5 
million to $500,000.
    FHWA Response: There is presently $5.2 million available in FY 1998 
and 1999 funds for non-BIA owned IRR bridges. The FHWA believes the 
$1.5 million is a reasonable limit.

13. When are IRR Bridge Projects Eligible for Funding? (Sec. 661.39)

    Six commenters had no remark on this issue.
    FHWA position: We have modified our position announced in the prior 
notice by deleting ``control schedule'' and replacing with ``IRRBP 
TIP'' in order to reduce some of the documentation requirements. It 
reads as follows. The statute provides that IRR funds to carry out 
IRRBP projects shall be made available only on approval of the PS&E by 
the Secretary. Approval consists of having completed and approved 
bridge design, specifications and estimates. 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 
or BIADOT PS&E approval letter, certification checklist and IRRBP TIP 
must be forwarded by the area office to the BIADOT/FLH 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.
    Three commenters, the BIA Navajo Area Office, the Navajo Nation and 
the BIA Aberdeen Area Office were concerned with the 120 calendar day 
award period.
    FHWA Response: If the BIA Area office cannot award a contract 
within 120 days, those funds should be made available to ones that can. 
The BIA Area offices in partnership with ITGs, all need to be pro-
active in awarding bridge construction contracts once they receive 
approval and funding. It is important that obligation limitation in a 
given fiscal year be fully utilized so as not to impact regular IRR 
program obligation limitation in the next fiscal year.
    The BIA Billings Area Office stated that there is no requirement in 
some area certification acceptance plans for FHWA approval.
    FHWA Response: Based on the current BIA/FHWA Stewardship plan, 
there are no BIA Area offices with second level approval authority for 
IRR bridge projects.
    The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, 
wanted to know what funding can be used for project development.
    FHWA Response: Regular IRR program funds can be used for project 
development. The IRRBP funds can only be used for construction and 
construction engineering (CE) and may not be used for project 
development. We will address this comment in Sec. 661.13 of the rules.
    The New York State DOT seemed concerned that somehow the FHWA would 
override State, local or ITG selection of projects. The ITG should be 
involved in selection of candidate bridge projects.
    FHWA Response: We are not establishing the priority of which IRR 
bridges should be chosen but will provide a list of bridges which are 
in fact deficient. We do however, have approval authority via review of 
the application packages being submitted.
    The BIA Aberdeen Area Office, was concerned with insufficient 
staffing levels at the FHWA Division Offices.

FHWA Response: Because of the concern for the ability of an FHWA 
Division Office to review a PS&E package in a timely manner, the 
term ``FHWA Division Office'' will be replaced with ``FHWA or 
BIADOT'' in Sec. 661.39 of the rules.

14. What Does a Complete Application Package Consist of? (Sec. 661.41)

    Six commenters had no remark on this issue. The BIA Navajo Area 
Office stated that the FHWA was requiring too much documentation.
    FHWA Response: We have modified our position announced in the prior 
notice by deleting ``control schedule'' and replacing it with ``IRRBP 
TIP'' in order to reduce some of the documentation requirements. Aside 
from this, in order for the 12 BIA area offices to operate consistently 
and fairly with each other, we believe that it is a reasonable 
requirement for sufficient documentation to be supplied with each 
application, to ensure that the PS&E package is complete and the 
project is ready for construction.
    FHWA Position: The FHWA has also included a requirement that non-
BIA IRR bridge projects be supported with a tribal resolution. The FHWA 
is including this requirement to insure that public authorities confer 
with the ITGs on the issue of replacement and rehabilitation of 
deficient non-BIA owned IRR bridges if and when public authorities 
apply for IRRBP funding. This will be included in Sec. 661.31, 
Sec. 661.39 and Sec. 661.41 of the rules.
    The BIA Aberdeen Area Office was concerned with insufficient 
staffing levels at the FHWA Division Offices which may not be 
sufficient enough to review PS&Es.
    FHWA Response: The term ``Division Office'' is deleted and ``or 
BIADOT'' is added. In cases where the divisions are not sufficiently 
staffed to review PS&Es, the review can be accomplished by the BIADOT 
or the FHWA Federal Lands Highway Division offices. This is delineated 
in the FHWA/BIADOT Stewardship plan of July 1996. Based on the 
preceding discussions, the response to this question is as follows: 
Therefore, a complete application package would consist of the 
following: the FHWA or BIADOT PS&E approval letter, certification 
checklist and IRRBP TIP. In addition to the preceding items, for non-
BIA IRR bridges, the application package must also include a tribal 
resolution supporting the project.

15. How are the FY 1998 Projects To Be Treated? (Sec. 661.43)

    The majority of commenters had no remark on this issue. Two 
commenters agreed with the discussion in our prior notice.
    FHWA Position: As discussed in our prior notice, 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.
    Two commenters, the BIA Navajo Area Office and Navajo Nation, were 
concerned regarding bridge projects where the award for the 
construction contract occurred in FY 1998 using regular IRR program 
funds. These commenters wanted reimbursement from the IRRBP funds.
    FHWA Response: This issue has been addressed in a FHWA policy 
letter

[[Page 38569]]

dated February 19, 1999, to allow for reimbursement on a case-by-case 
basis within one year of award.
    The BIA Aberdeen Area Office expressed concern with obtaining 
``accurate detour length.''
    FHWA Response: Detour length is national bridge inventory (NBI) 
item number 19, which is included with each bridge file. This item 
should be checked along with other condition data by the bridge 
inspectors performing the biennial inspections for the BIA and by the 
BIADOT which performs oversight quality assurance/quality control 
checks of the inspection data.

16. How is a List of Deficient Bridges To Be Generated? (Sec. 661.45)

    The majority of commenters had no remark on this issue.
    FHWA position: As discussed in our prior notice, in consultation 
with the BIA, 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 all 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, ITGs, and 
State and local governments.
    The BIA area offices in consultation with Indian tribal 
governments, are encouraged to 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 truck 
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.
    The New York State DOT was concerned that the decision of which 
bridge will be programmed for the IRRBP would be accomplished at the 
local level.
    FHWA Response: There is nothing in the current language to preclude 
this. BIA area offices in consultation with ITGs must be involved in 
selection of candidate bridge projects since, as users of the facility, 
they are most familiar with local needs, and safety implications, as 
well as other factors related to priorization. The master list based on 
the national bridge inventory (NBI) would identify bridges which are 
deficient; however, prioritization would be made at the local level. We 
are not establishing the priority--merely providing a list of IRR 
bridges which are deficient.
    Three commenters, the Navajo Nation, BIA Billings Area Office and 
BIA Fort Belknap Agency, thought only one list would be necessary, 
i.e., one for BIA owned IRR bridges.
    FHWA Response: In order to include non-BIA owned IRR bridges two 
lists will need to be developed.

17. In the Event of Project Cost Overruns, How Would They be Funded? 
(Sec. 661.47)

    Seven commenters had no remark and four agreed with the FHWA on 
this issue. The New York State DOT wanted the States to retain any 
``cost savings.''
    FHWA Response: The IRRBP funds are reimbursable and project 
specific. As such they are to be returned to the BIADOT/FLH in cases 
where ``under runs'' or ``savings'' occur.
    The BIA Phoenix Area Office wanted to see specific language to 
clarify the process for handling overruns and further argued that under 
runs also should be considered.
    FHWA Response: The question of under runs is addressed in item 
number 21. We have provided the following additional language to the 
rules: The BIA area road engineer (ARE) would request additional 
funding for a specific bridge project and submit a request with 
appropriate justification along with an explanation as to why this 
additional funding is necessary.
    Based on the preceding discussion, the response to the question of 
cost overrun treatment is as follows: Because of the critical nature of 
this program, BIA area road engineer 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/FLH project approval 
procedures. The AREs would request additional IRRBP funding for a 
specific bridge project and submit a request with appropriate 
justification along with an explanation as to why this additional IRRBP 
funding is necessary. Likewise, project cost over runs may be funded 
out of regular IRR program funds.

18. Could Regular IRR Funds be Used to Fund a Bridge Project? 
(Sec. 661.49)

    Seven commenters had no comment and two agreed with the FHWA 
position set forth in the prior notice.
    FHWA Position: Regular IRR construction funds can be used to fund a 
bridge project with the concurrence of the FHWA, BIADOT and the ARE.
    The BIA Billings Area Office expressed concern that the IRR funds 
would be provided for non-BIA owned IRR bridges. The same commenter 
noted the desire to strike, ``Note, IRR funds may not be used to match 
state HBRRP funds.''
    FHWA Response: In response to this comment, the ITG may elect to 
use their IRR funds for non-BIA IRR bridges. Title IX of Pub. L. 105-
206, sec. 1115(f)(3), changed the ability to use IRR funds to match 
State HBRRP funds. The use of the HBRRP funds is outside the scope of 
this document.
    The BIA Aberdeen Area Office wanted to know why the concurrence of 
the FHWA and the BIADOT is needed to use IRR program funds to fund a 
bridge construction project?
    FHWA Response: The BIADOT and the FHWA have approval authority for 
all IRR projects which appear on a TIP, therefore concurrence is a 
requirement.

19. Could Bridge Maintenance Be Performed With These Funds? 
(Sec. 661.51)

    Eight commenters have no comment and three agree with the FHWA 
position stated in the prior notice.
    FHWA Position: As discussed in our prior notice, the response to 
this question is as follows. No, bridge maintenance type repairs would 
not be within the scope of funding, e.g., guard rail replacement, deck 
timber repair, delineators replacement, etc. There are maintenance 
funds available through annual Department of the Interior 
appropriations for use on BIA owned bridges. These Department of the 
Interior bridge maintenance funds would be the appropriate funding 
source for bridge maintenance.

20. Once Eligibility of a Bridge Project has Been Determined, how Will 
the Project be Funded/Programmed? (Sec. 661.9)

    Several alternatives were set forth in the prior notice and we 
considered them fully in our review. For ease of

[[Page 38570]]

reference, the alternatives are presented in tabular form at the end of 
this topic.
    For BIA owned IRR bridges, the Pueblo of Zuni, BIA Aberdeen Area 
Office and BIA Great Lakes Agency generally preferred alternative 1; 
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians preferred alternative 1 along with 
a modified alternative 4; the New York State DOT preferred alternative 
2; the Cherokee Nation preferred a combination of alternatives 2, 3 and 
5 coupled with an Indian population factor; the Navajo Nation and the 
BIA Navajo Area Office preferred alternative 3; the BIA Billings Area 
Office and BIA Fort Belknap Agency preferred alternative 4; and the 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation 
preferred alternative 5. The BIA Phoenix Area Office wanted to see a 
triage approach involving funding of the ``worst first''.
    Most commenters did not want to see funding for non-BIA owned IRR 
bridges. Four commenters, the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee 
Indians, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and Isabella County, 
desire funding for non-BIA owned IRR bridges.
    FHWA Response: The purpose of the IRRBP is to optimize the number 
of IRR bridges rehabilitated or replaced with the intent of eliminating 
as many deficient IRR bridges as possible during the TEA-21 period of 
authorization. Alternative 4 provides a first in and first out approach 
to fund these projects and, as such, would meet the program objective. 
Alternative 5, priorization of projects, would be used in cases where 
application packages arrive at the same time and the procedure outlines 
a method to settle any issues if such a situation were to occur. 
Alternative 4 is believed to maximize the number of IRR bridges 
participating in the IRRBP in a given fiscal year. Funding for the 
IRRBP should be fully utilized in a given fiscal year to eliminate 
deficient IRR bridges which pose a potential safety problem for the 
Tribes and motoring public; to maximize the number of bridges 
participating in the IRRBP; and to reduce the impact of obligation 
limitation deductions on the IRR program from one fiscal year to the 
next by fully obligating available IRRBP funding. We realize that this 
whole program hinges on ITGs using their regular IRR program funds for 
development of PS&E packages regardless of the approach being used.
    For non-BIA IRR bridges, the procedures using 20 percent of the 
IRRBP funds should parallel the same procedures adopted for the BIA 
owned IRR bridges.
    While alternative 1, deficient bridge deck area percentage, 
provides allocation of funds to be set aside for at a specific BIA Area 
Office, it has the potential to tie bridge program funds up among the 
12 BIA area offices for an unknown period of time. There is the 
likelihood of some BIA Area Offices not having PS&E packages in order 
to use up all of the available funding under this alternative. This 
being the case, it would impact the other BIA Area Offices regarding 
the amount of regular IRR funds available in the following fiscal year. 
Alternative 1 is not likely to maximize the rehabilitation and 
replacement of deficient IRR bridges. Alternative 2, deficient bridge 
deck area percentage--State specific, follows along the same line as 
alternative 1, but would be State specific.
    Alternative 3, percentage of deficient bridges, does not reflect a 
true measure for programming bridges since it is based on numbers of 
deficient bridges. A small bridge will have the same value as a larger, 
more costly bridge. The costs will not be proportional and therefore 
not maximize the use of the IRRBP funding.
    Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 essentially have similar limitations 
imposed on the bridge program as the previous ``not less than 1 
percent'' HBRRP which many people complained about. Congress eliminated 
the ``not less than 1 percent'' HBRRP with the TEA-21 Restoration Act. 
The basis of the complaints had to do with inequities in funding with 
more going toward bridges east of the Mississippi River when a greater 
number of deficient IRR bridges are actually to the west of the 
Mississippi River. In some cases the HBRRP funding was not being fully 
utilized.
    We believe that after determination of bridge project eligibility, 
funding and/or programming should consist of a combination of 
alternatives 4 and 5. Based on the preceding discussion, the response 
to the question of how projects will be funded/programmed is as 
follows: 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 submission 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.
    In those cases where application packages have arrived at the same 
time, 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.

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

[[Page 38571]]

 
    Based on bridge deck area for           2  Calculation made of the            1    Intentionally left blank
     deficient bridges but State                deficient bridges within
     specific.                                  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            3  Calculation made of the                 Intentionally left blank
     bridges.                                   number of 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            4  Bridges are placed in a            2  Bridges are placed in a
     the PS&E package (first in                 queue based on the order              queue based on the order
     first out).                                of receipt of a complete              of receipt of a complete
                                                PS&E package. Funds are               PS&E package. Funds are
                                                made available to the                 made available to the BIA
                                                BIA Area Office based on              Area Office based on the
                                                the order of submission.              order of 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            5  Bridges are prioritized            3  Submitted complete PS&E
     PS&E Packages.                             and ranked based on SR,               packages are ranked and
                                                status, school bus                    prioritized by sufficiency
                                                route, detour length,                 rating, etc. Funds are
                                                ADT, and truck ADT.                   made available to the Area
                                                Funds are allocated to                Office based on the
                                                the BIA Area Office                   priority ranking. If no,
                                                based on the ranking.                 non-BIA bridge projects
                                                                                      are identified in any FY,
                                                                                      those funds would be made
                                                                                      available for BIA owned
                                                                                      bridges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Under Alternative Procedures Presented Above, After a Bridge 
Project Has Been Completed, What Happens With the Excess or Surplus 
Contract Authority? (Sec. 661.11)

    The majority of commenters had no comment on this issue.
    Three commenters, the BIA Navajo Area Office, the Navajo Nation and 
the BIA Great Lakes Agency, wanted to see excess funds reserved for use 
on another bridge project involving that BIA Area office. The BIA 
Billings Area Office and the BIA Fort Belknap Agency, wanted to see 
excess funds being sent back to BIADOT/FHWA for use on additional 
approved IRR bridge projects. The New York State DOT, wanted the funds 
to be reserved for use within the State.
    FHWA Response: Since the funding is project specific, once a bridge 
construction project has been completed under this program, any excess 
or surplus funding would be returned to BIADOT/FHWA. These surplus 
funds would be for use on additional approved deficient IRR bridge 
projects. This is based on the need for maximizing the numbers of 
bridges to be either replaced or rehabilitated in a nationwide program. 
Since this is a cost reimbursable program, there are no savings and 
cost underruns shall be returned to BIADOT/FHWA.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 
allows agencies engaged in rulemaking to dispense with prior notice and 
opportunity for comment when the agency for good cause finds that such 
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public 
interest. For the reasons set forth below, the FHWA has determined that 
prior notice to the public on this action is unnessary and contrary to 
the public interest.
    The FHWA has determined that prior notice and opportunity for 
comment are unnecessary because comments regarding the project 
selection/fund allocation procedures proposed for the IRRBP were 
solicited in a February 12, 1999, Federal Register notice along with 
informal meetings on this subject that were held at various locations 
during December 1998. We have reviewed all comments received in 
response to the published notice and those introduced at the public 
meetings and have incorporated changes to the original document where 
necessary.
    The criticality of having in place the project selection/fund 
allocation procedures for the IRRBP cannot be over emphasized since 
there are deficient IRR bridges which are both on and off reservation 
which require remedy to safety, functional and structural deficiencies. 
These deficient IRR bridges pose a safety threat to residents of the 
Indian reservation as well as the motoring public.
    The agency has currently identified 163 deficient BIA owned IRR 
bridges where IRRBP funds can be used to alleviate the safety 
deficiencies identified in bridge inspection reports and subsequent 
data submitted to the NBI. Likewise, there are approximately 940 non-
BIA owned IRR bridges which are also deficient. While the IRRBP may not 
be able to replace or rehabilitate all bridges which are deficient, it 
attempts to correct ones which have a dire need; these are ones that 
have been chosen for participation in the IRRBP by the Indian tribal 
governments.
    By proceeding with implementation of the program procedures 
prescribed herein, the FHWA plans to fully utilize IRRBP funding by 
eliminating deficient IRR bridges which pose a potential safety problem 
for the Tribes and motoring public; maximizing the number of bridges 
participating in the IRRBP; and reducing the impact of obligation 
limitation deductions on the IRR program from one fiscal year to the 
next.

[[Page 38572]]

    The IRRBP funds were available in the fourth quarter of FY 1998; 
however, the project selection/fund allocation procedures were not in 
place at that time to allow the FHWA to legally release these funds. We 
have essentially lost use of these funds for one year (FY1998) of the 
four year funding provided in TEA-21. Unless these procedures are put 
in place very soon, we also may not be able to provide the IRRBP funds 
to the BIA with enough time to obligate against the bridge projects 
which are waiting to be funded in the current fiscal year (FY1999).
    In summary: (1) The regulations are necessary to put in place the 
project selection/fund allocation procedures for the IRRBP immediately; 
(2) the IRRBP is vitally important to alleviate deficient IRR bridges, 
bridges which are crucial to the well being of Native Americans living 
both on and off reservations, as well as the motoring public using 
these bridges; (3) IRR bridges play an important role in support of the 
transportation infrastructure on reservations; and (4) the regulations 
govern a program designed to alleviate safety, structural and 
functional deficiencies for IRR bridges of which there is a immediate 
and critical need.
    In conclusion, any further delay in adopting the prescribed 
procedures may impact safety of the motoring public in general and the 
Tribes in particular using these deficient IRR bridges. Accordingly, we 
believe that imposition of notice and comment procedures prior to 
adoption of this rule would prove potentially detrimental to safety 
and, thus, contrary to the public interest.
    Nevertheless, we will invite public comment in response to the 
interim final rule. Comments received will be carefully considered in 
evaluating whether any change to the interim rule adopted here is 
warranted.
    The APA also allows agencies, upon a finding of good cause, to make 
a rule effective immediately upon publication, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The 
FHWA has determined that good cause exists in this instance to make 
this rule effective for the following reasons: (1) The regulations are 
necessary to put in place the project selection/fund allocation 
procedures for the IRRBP immediately; (2) the IRRBP is vitally 
important to alleviate deficient IRR bridges, bridges which are crucial 
to the well being of Native Americans living both on and off 
reservations, as well as the motoring public using these bridges; (3) 
IRR bridges play an important role in supporting the transportation 
infrastructure on reservations; and (4) the regulations govern a 
program designed to alleviate safety, structural and functional 
deficiencies for IRR bridges of which there is a immediate and critical 
need. We emphasize that making these rules effective immediately will 
ensure that IRRBP funds may be readily dispersed and, thus, will be 
responsive to the goal of fully utilizing IRRBP funding in a given 
fiscal year to maximize the number of bridges participating in the 
program.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities 
including Indian Tribal and local governments. The funding available 
under the IRRBP is thought to have a beneficial economic impact on 
small entities; however, the funding impact is not expected to be 
significant. Accordingly, the FHWA certifies that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, except in a positive manner.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Polices and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action 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 action will be minimal; therefore, a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required. The $13 million in IRRBP funds 
comprises only 6 percent of the overall IRR program funds (FY 1999) and 
does not have a significant economic impact on the IRR program. 
Therefore, the economic impact is considered minimal.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This interim rule does not impose a Federal mandate as defined by 
the unfunded mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), that 
will 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.

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 
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 information collection requirements 
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.) and has determined that this action will 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 661

    Bridges, Highways and roads, Indian reservation roads and bridges.

    Issued on: July 9, 1999.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Administrator.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 23, 
Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, as set forth below:
    1. Add part 661 to read as follows:

PART 661--INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD BRIDGE PROGRAM

Sec.
661.1  What is the purpose of this regulation?
661.3  Who must comply with this regulation?
661.5  What definitions apply to this regulation?
661.7  What is the Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program (IRRBP)?
661.9  How will the bridge project be funded/programmed once 
eligibility has been determined?
661.11  After a bridge project has been completed what happens with 
the excess or surplus funding?
661.13  What restrictions are there on the use of the IRRBP funds?

[[Page 38573]]

661.15  What is the total funding available for the IRR Bridge 
Program?
661.17  When will these funds become available?
661.19  When does an eligible project receive funding?
661.21  How long will these funds be available?
661.23  What can these IRR bridge funds be used for?
661.25  What are the criteria for bridge eligibility?
661.27  When is a bridge eligible for replacement?
661.29  When is a bridge eligible for rehabilitation?
661.31  How does ownership impact project selection?
661.33  Do IRRBP projects have to be on a transportation improvement 
program (TIP)?
661.35  What percent of the funding in any fiscal year is available 
for use on BIA owned IRR bridges and non-BIA owned IRR bridges?
661.37  What percent of a specific project's construction costs is 
covered under this program?
661.39  When are IRR bridge projects eligible for funding?
661.41  What does a complete application package consist of?
661.43  How are the FY 1998 projects to be treated?
661.45  How is a list of deficient bridges to be generated?
661.47  In the event of project cost over runs, how would they be 
funded?
661.49  Could regular IRR funds be used to fund a bridge project?
661.51  Could bridge maintenance be performed with these funds?

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 120(j) and (k), 202, and 315; 49 CFR 1.48.


Sec. 661.1  What is the purpose of this regulation?

    The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe policies for project 
selection and fund allocation procedures for administering the Indian 
Reservation Road Bridge Program (IRRBP).


Sec. 661.3  Who must comply with this regulation?

    Public authorities must comply to participate in the IRRBP by 
preparing plans, specification and estimates (PS&E) for deficient 
Indian Reservation Road (IRR) bridges and make application for 
construction funds for the replacement or rehabilitation of these 
bridges.


Sec. 661.5  What definitions apply to this regulation?

    The following definitions apply to this regulation:
    Construction engineering (CE) is the supervision and inspection of 
construction activities; additional staking functions considered 
necessary for effective control of the construction operations; testing 
materials incorporated into construction; checking shop drawings; and 
measurements needed for the preparation of pay estimates.
    Functional obsolescence (FO) is the state or process of being one 
in which the deck geometry, load carrying capacity (comparison of the 
original design load to the State legal load), clearance, or approach 
roadway alignment no longer meets the usual criteria for the system of 
which it is an integral part.
    Indian reservation road means a public road that is located within 
or provides access to an Indian reservation or Indian trust land or 
restricted Indian land which is not subject to fee title alienation 
without the approval of the Federal Government, or Indian and Alaska 
Native villages, groups, or communities in which Indians and Alaskan 
Natives reside, whom the Secretary of the Interior has determined are 
eligible for services generally available to Indians under Federal laws 
specifically applicable to Indians.
    Indian reservation road bridge means a structure located on an 
Indian reservation road (IRR), including supports, erected over a 
depression or an obstruction, such as water, a highway, or a railway, 
and having a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving 
loads, and having an opening measured along the center of the roadway 
of more than 20 feet between undercopings of abutments or spring lines 
of arches, or extreme ends of the openings for multiple boxes; it may 
also include multiple pipes, where the clear distance between openings 
is less than half of the smaller contiguous opening.
    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 road means any road or street under the jurisdiction of and 
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel.
    Structural deficient (SD) bridge means a bridge that has been 
restricted to light vehicles only, is closed or requires immediate 
rehabilitation to remain open.
    Sufficiency rating (SR) means the numerical rating of a bridge 
based on its structural adequacy and safety, essentiality for public 
use, and its serviceability and functional obsolescence.


Sec. 661.7  What is the Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program (IRRBP)?

    Section 202(d)(4) of title 23, U.S.C., establishes a nationwide 
priority program for improving deficient Indian reservation road (IRR) 
bridges and reserves not less than $13 million of IRR funds per year to 
replace and rehabilitate bridges that are in poor condition. This 
program which addresses the replacement of deficient IRR bridges is 
referred to as the IRRBP.


Sec. 661.9  How will the bridge project be funded/programmed once 
eligibility has been determined?

    (a) Funding and/or programming of construction projects for 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 submission to the BIADOT and date stamped. This submission queue 
would form the basis for prioritization during any fiscal year (FY). 
After the queue for the FY is filled up, that is, the IRRBP funding is 
used up, a queue for the following FY would be established.
    (b) In those cases where application packages have arrived at the 
same time, application packages would be ranked and prioritized based 
on the following criteria:
    (1) Bridge sufficiency rating (SR);
    (2) Bridge status with structurally deficient (SD) having 
precedence over functionally obsolete (FO);
    (3) Bridges on school bus routes;
    (4) Detour length;
    (5) Average daily traffic; and
    (6) Truck average daily traffic.


Sec. 661.11  After a bridge project has been completed what happens 
with the excess or surplus funding?

    Since the funding is project specific, once a bridge construction 
project has been completed under this program, any excess or surplus 
funding would be returned to BIADOT/FHWA for use on additional approved 
deficient IRR bridge projects.


Sec. 661.13  What restrictions are there on the use of the IRRBP funds?

    The IRRBP funds can only be used for construction and construction 
engineering (CE) and may not be used for project development.


Sec. 661.15  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 fiscal year.

[[Page 38574]]

Sec. 661.17  When will these funds become available?

    These funds become available on October 1 of each fiscal year.


Sec. 661.19  When does an eligible project receive funding?

    The statute provides that these funds are provided after the 
Secretary of Transportation (FHWA) approves a completed PS&E.


Sec. 661.21  How long will these funds be available?

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


Sec. 661.23  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, including 
multiple pipe culverts.


Sec. 661.25  What are the criteria for bridge eligibility?

    (a) Bridge eligibility requires the following:
    (1) Have an opening of 20 feet or more;
    (2) Be on an IRR;
    (3) Be unsafe because of structural deficiencies, physical 
deterioration or functional obsolescence; and
    (4) Be recorded in the national bridge inventory (NBI) maintained 
by the FHWA.
    (b) Bridges that were constructed, rehabilitated or replaced in the 
last 10 years, will be eligible only for seismic retrofit or 
installation of scour countermeasures.


Sec. 661.27  When is a bridge eligible for replacement?

    To be eligible for replacement, the bridge must be considered 
deficient for reasons of structural deficiency or functional 
obsolescence. Also, the bridge must have a sufficiency rating of less 
than 50 to be eligible for replacement.


Sec. 661.29  When is a bridge eligible for rehabilitation?

    To be eligible for rehabilitation, the bridge must be considered 
deficient for reasons of structural deficiency or functional 
obsolescence. Also, the bridge must have a sufficiency rating of less 
than or equal to 80 to be eligible for rehabilitation. A bridge would 
be eligible for replacement if the total life cycle cost for bridge 
rehabilitation exceeds the costs to replace.


Sec. 661.31  How does ownership impact project selection?

    Since the Federal government has both a trust responsibility and 
owns the BIA bridges on Indian reservations, 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, however; these projects must be supported by a tribal 
resolution.


Sec. 661.33  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.


Sec. 661.35  What percent of the funding in any fiscal year is 
available for use on BIA owned IRR bridges and non-BIA owned IRR 
bridges?

    Up to 80 percent ($10.4 million) of funding in any fiscal year 
would be available for use on BIA owned IRR bridges. This would leave 
20 percent ($2.6 million) of funding in any fiscal year that would be 
available for use on non-BIA owned IRR bridges. A smaller percentage of 
available funds has been set aside for non-BIA IRR bridges, since 
States and counties have access to Federal-aid and other funding to 
replace and rehabilitate their bridges and that 23 U.S.C. 204(c) 
requires that IRR funds be supplemental to and not in lieu of other 
funds apportioned to the State. The program policy will be to maximize 
the number of IRR bridges participating in the IRRBP in a given fiscal 
year regardless of ownership.


Sec. 661.37  What percent of a specific project's construction costs is 
covered under this program?

    The following funding provisions apply in administration of the 
IRRBP:
    (a) 100 percent IRRBP funding would be provided for a BIA owned IRR 
bridge;
    (b) Up to 80 percent of the IRRBP funding would be provided for a 
State, county, or locally owned non-BIA IRR bridge;
    (c) States, counties, local and tribal governments would be 
required to provide at least 20 percent of the funds for non-BIA owned 
IRR bridges;
    (d) The IRRBP funding ceiling for any single non-BIA owned IRR 
bridge project would be $1.5 million.


Sec. 661.39  When are IRR bridge projects eligible for funding?

    The statute provides that IRR funds to carry out IRRBP projects 
shall be made available only on approval of the PS&E by the Secretary 
(FHWA). Approval consists of having completed and approved bridge 
design, specifications and estimates. The project must be ready for 
construction, right of way must have been acquired, and the project 
contract must be awarded within 120 calendar days of funding. A copy of 
the FHWA or BIADOT PS&E approval letter, certification checklist and 
IRRBP TIP must be forwarded by the area office to the BIADOT/FLH for 
review and acceptance. For non-BIA IRR bridges, the application package 
must also include a tribal resolution supporting the project. 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.


Sec. 661.41  What does a complete application package consist of?

    A complete application package would consist of the following: the 
FHWA or BIADOT PS&E approval letter, certification checklist and IRRBP 
TIP. In addition to the preceding items, for non-BIA IRR bridges, the 
application package must also include a tribal resolution supporting 
the project.


Sec. 661.43  How are the FY 1998 projects to be treated?

    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.


Sec. 661.45  How is a list of deficient bridges to be generated?

    (a) In consultation with the BIA, a list of deficient BIA IRR 
bridges will 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 all bridges. Likewise, a list of non-BIA IRR bridges will 
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) will be developed and will include, at 
a minimum, the following:
    (1) Sufficiency rating (SR);
    (2) Status (structurally deficient or functionally obsolete);

[[Page 38575]]

    (3) Average daily traffic (NBI item 29);
    (4) Detour length (NBI item 19); and
    (5) Truck average daily traffic (NBI item 109).
    (b) These lists would be provided by the FHWA to the BIADOT for 
publication and notification of affected BIA area offices, Indian 
tribal governments (ITG)s, and State and local governments.
    (c) BIA area offices in consultation with ITGs, are encouraged to 
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 higher truck ADT should take precedence 
over those which have lower truck 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.


Sec. 661.47  In the event of project cost over runs, how would they be 
funded?

    (a) 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/FLH project approval procedures. The ARE would 
request additional IRRBP funding for a specific bridge project and 
submit a request with appropriate justification along with an 
explanation as to why this additional IRRBP funding is necessary.
    (b) In addition, project cost over runs may be funded out of 
regular IRR program funds.


Sec. 661.49  Could regular IRR funds be used to fund a bridge project?

    Yes. Regular IRR construction funds can be used to fund a bridge 
project with the concurrence of the FHWA, BIADOT and the BIA ARE.


Sec. 661.51  Could bridge maintenance be performed with these funds?

    No. Bridge maintenance repairs would not be within the scope of 
funding, e.g., guard rail repair, deck repairs, repair of traffic 
control devices, striping, cleaning scuppers, deck sweeping, snow and 
debris removal, etc. There are maintenance funds available through 
annual Department of the Interior appropriations for use on BIA owned 
bridges. The Department of the Interior maintenance funds would be the 
appropriate funding source for bridge maintenance.

[FR Doc. 99-18308 Filed 7-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P