[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 2, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25441-25445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10780]



[[Page 25441]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 668

[FHWA Docket No. 97-3105]
RIN 2125--AE27


Emergency Relief Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending its regulation on the emergency relief 
(ER) program to revise the threshold used in determining eligibility 
for a disaster from $500,000 to $700,000. The threshold is used to 
distinguish between heavy maintenance or routine emergency repairs and 
serious damage eligible under the ER program. In addition, the FHWA is 
amending the regulation to include the recent clarifying guidance on 
administering ER funding eligibility for betterment/replacement 
facilities, for project and project features resulting from the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and for traffic 
damage caused by response vehicles. Also, this document presents 
changes to the ER application process; minor revisions to guidance for 
eligible uses; and the revised policy of delegating the approval 
authority to FHWA Division Administrators, previously exercised by the 
Federal Highway Administrator, to make the initial ``finding'' 
approving ER assistance for a new disaster and related administrative 
procedural changes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohan P. Pillay, Office of Program 
Administration, 202-366-4655, or Harold Aikens, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, 202-366-0764, FHWA, 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 holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users may 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 may be downloaded by using a computer, 
modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: 
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web 
page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    The changes to the FHWA's ER regulations embraced in this final 
rule were developed based on the comments made to a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) on this subject published in the Federal Register on 
June 7, 1999, at 64 FR 30263 (FHWA Docket No. 97-3105). This NPRM was 
published based on an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 
published in the Federal Register on February 19, 1998, to generate 
discussion and comments on the appropriateness of the previous 
threshold value, as well as any additional options/concepts regarding 
establishment of a disaster eligibility threshold. Interested persons 
were invited to participate in the development of this final rule by 
submitting written comments on the NPRM to FHWA Docket 97-3105 on or 
before August 6, 1999. Comments were received from 11 entities. The 
commenters include: 8 State Departments of Transportation (DOT), 1 
county government, 1 State Association of County Engineers, and the 
American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). All 
comments received in response to amendments in the NPRM have been 
considered in adopting this final rule.
    The current FHWA regulations implementing the emergency relief 
program are found primarily at 23 CFR part 668. Subpart A of part 668 
sets forth the procedures for the administration of ER funds for the 
repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways. This final rule 
amends these regulations in the following manner and for the reasons 
indicated below.

ER Threshold

    After considering all comments received, the FHWA has decided to 
increase the threshold to $700,000. In Sec. 668.105(j), the second 
sentence is being amended by replacing $500,000 with $700,000. This 
amendment is made to reflect the change in the current purchasing power 
of the dollar based on the increase in the composite bid price index 
for Federal-aid highway construction from 1987 to 1997. The FHWA plans 
to periodically review the threshold and adjust it, as appropriate, 
through future rulemakings. In exceptional circumstances, such as in 
the case of Territories and in States with small highway programs, a 
disaster under the $700,000 threshold could be considered eligible for 
ER funding, as has been the case with damage in the range of $500,000 
or slightly less under the previous disaster eligibility threshold.
    Of the comments received with regard to the ER threshold, seven 
opposed and two supported the increase in the threshold. One commenter 
expressed concern about the effect the increase could have on a local 
agency when the disaster is isolated to a small area of the State and 
substantial amount of damage costs would be incurred by a local agency, 
yet the $700,000 threshold is not met statewide. Another commenter 
suggested that the threshold should be determined by using a tier 
system that would insure fairness to those States which have a lesser 
ability to cope with disasters.
    One of the arguments by commenters against revising the existing 
threshold is that they allege it would create extreme hardship on local 
units of government, which have very limited resources, and could force 
States and local governments to divert funds from other pressing State 
and local highway investments. Commenters also assert that they do not 
have the flexibility to shift resources from other areas to cover the 
cost of road damage due to a natural disaster. Another comment was that 
the cumulative budgetary impact for the State Department of 
Transportation and for the local municipalities can be significant 
during times of multiple events within a short time span. The 
commenters provided no explanation or evidence why it was appropriate 
or feasible for the Federal government, rather than the State 
governments, to pay these costs from its very limited resources.
    One commenter referred to the ANPRM and pointed out that ``only 20 
percent of disasters funded in1996 involved sums of less than $1 
million and this suggests that a threshold of $500,000 is not causing 
FHWA to be flooded with small applications for disaster relief and that 
FHWA is proposing to fix a problem that simply does not exist.'' The 
principle reason the FHWA is increasing the threshold is not to reduce 
the financial and/or administrative burden of this program on the 
Federal government; rather, the increase to the threshold reflects the 
change in purchasing power of the dollar since the $500,000 threshold 
was established in 1987.
    Since the proposed rulemaking allows for a disaster under the 
$700,000 threshold to be considered in exceptional circumstances for 
States

[[Page 25442]]

with small highway programs, one commenter recommended that 
consideration also be given to local agencies where there is a 
substantial amount of damage even though the $700,000 threshold was not 
met statewide. This recommendation would mean that any State where a 
local agency sustained a substantial amount of damage, but below the 
$700,000 threshold, could qualify for the ER program funding 
assistance. This approach would defeat the very purpose of the 
threshold concept, and, therefore the FHWA has not adopted this 
recommendation.
    One commenter wanted all public highway facilities to be eligible 
for the ER program by including those non-Federal-aid highway 
facilities currently eligible for the Federal Emergency Management 
(FEMA) public assistance program. The Congress, by statute, has limited 
the ER program to Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands. Any 
change to have the ER program cover all public roads would require a 
statutory amendment and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking 
activity. Also, the commenter states that repair costs for both damaged 
Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid highways should be considered when 
determining whether an event meets the threshold under the ER program. 
The FHWA does not agree with this concept. Since the ER program is 
limited by statute to repair of Federal-aid highways, determinations of 
the extent of damage necessary to trigger ER funding for an event 
should be directly related to eligible repair costs under the ER 
program.
    One commenter is of the opinion that determining the threshold 
based on a tiered system would insure fairness to those States which 
have a lesser ability to cope with disasters that should meet a higher 
threshold to be eligible under the ER program. The FHWA believes that 
counties and other local agencies would not be treated equally from 
State to State if a tiered approach is adopted. For example, a county 
whose Federal-aid highways that have sustained $1.5 million of eligible 
ER repair costs, but located in a State where the ER eligibility 
threshold is set at $2 million, would not receive any benefits from the 
FHWA ER program funds. On the other hand, another county with the same 
amount of damage, but located in a State with a $1 million threshold, 
would be eligible to receive ER assistance.
    One commenter expressed concern about the application of the 
threshold to basin flooding situations. It is FHWA's position that the 
threshold would normally be applied to each individual basin; however, 
situations can arise where several basins in close proximity can be 
treated as one event for application of the threshold.

ER Program Administration

    The regulation is being amended to include recent clarifying 
guidance on administering the ER program. Also, amendments are included 
to reflect the recent revised procedure that delegated the approval 
authority to the FHWA Division Administrator to make the initial 
``finding'' approving ER assistance for a new disaster, and to 
incorporate related administrative and procedural changes to the ER 
program. The revised procedure on delegation of approval authority is 
considered a matter relating to internal agency management. Prior 
notice and comment are unnecessary under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or under DOT Order 2100.5, Policies and Procedures for 
Simplification, Analysis, and Review of Regulations,'' dated May 22, 
1980.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This document is available for inspection and copying as 
prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec. 668.103, a definition for ``betterments'' is being added. 
Because there has been a wide variety of interpretations, this addition 
will clarify guidance for determining ER funding eligibility and 
clearly establish the meaning of the term for the purposes of the 
FHWA's ER program. There was no opposition in the discussion of this 
term in the regulation.
    One commenter expressed concern that the phrase ``rebuilding of 
roadways at a higher elevation'' included in the betterment definition 
conflicts with Sec. 668.109(b)(8) relative to grade raises made 
necessary by long term loss of use of a highway due to basin flooding. 
It is noted that typically the repair of a road damaged due to basin 
flooding involves raising the grade of the road which does not require 
justification as a betterment as long as the proposed grade raise is 
reasonable and limited to critical Federal-aid highways. The FHWA 
agrees that clarification is helpful, and is modifying 
Sec. 668.109(b)(8) to clearly indicate that grade raises associated 
with basin flooding are not considered to be a betterment for the 
purpose of 23 CFR 668.109(b)(6).
    Also, Sec. 668.103 is being amended to modify the definition of 
``emergency repairs'' by replacing the word ``travel'' with the word 
``traffic'' to be consistent with other uses of this phrase in title 
23, United States Code, and in this regulation concerning the ER 
program.
    In Sec. 668.109(b)(6), the phrase ``such as relocation, 
replacement, upgrading or other added features not existing prior to 
the disaster,'' is being removed to eliminate confusion in interpreting 
the term ``betterments'' for the ER funding eligibility determination. 
Neither relocation or replacement of a highway facility is always 
considered a betterment under the ER program. There were no comments 
concerning the recommended change.
    Section 668.109(c)(2)(i) is being amended to insert the term ``to 
any public road'' after the word ``damage'' to further clarify the 
meaning of the sentence. No comments were received on this change.
    Section 668.109(c)(2)(iii) is being amended to expand the 
eligibility of ER funds to repair damages to Federal-aid highways 
caused by vehicles making repairs to other transportation facilities as 
well as by vehicles, such as fire engines or trucks removing debris, 
which are responding to a disaster. No comments were received on this 
change.
    Section 668.109(c)(8) is being amended to add the term ``including 
snow and ice removal'' after the word ``system.'' This will clarify 
that snow and ice removal are part of the other normal maintenance 
activities and are not eligible for ER funding. No comments were 
received on this change.
    Section 668.109 (d) is being amended to further clarify the 
guidance on eligibility of replacement highway facilities, particularly 
in those special cases where replacement of a damaged highway is not 
practical or feasible at its existing location, and an alternative is 
developed through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process. No comments were received concerning on 
this change.
    Section 668.113(b)(1) is being revised to reflect the current 
project procedures. The reference to ``the certification acceptance 
procedures found in 23 U.S.C. 117'' is being eliminated because the 
method using certification acceptance procedures in administering 
Federal-aid projects has been eliminated from title 23, U. S. Code, by 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 
105-178, 112 Stat.107(1998) No comments were received concerning this 
change.
    Several sections of the regulation are amended to reflect the 
recently revised procedure which delegated to the FHWA Division 
Administrator the approval authority to determine whether an event 
qualifies for ER assistance. Previously this approval authority rested 
with the Federal Highway Administrator in the Washington Headquarters, 
and the requests for an ER determination with supporting documents from 
the FHWA

[[Page 25443]]

Division offices had to be sent to the Federal Highway Administrator 
for approval. By delegating this approval authority to the FHWA 
Division Administrator, the agency's determination should be made more 
quickly, thus providing prompt affirmation to State and local highway 
officials concerning the eligibility of an event for ER assistance and 
also allowing permanent repair work to commence sooner. Accordingly, 
this approval action change will also require further changes to the 
regulation involved with preparation and submission of information 
supporting the request for ER funding for an event. The sections of the 
regulation being amended are described below:
    1. Sections 668.105(j) and 668.109(a) indicate to show that the 
FHWA Division Administrator, instead of the Federal Highway 
Administrator, is making the determination as to whether an event 
qualifies for ER assistance; and
    2. Section 668.111 covering application procedures, reflect that 
the approval authority now rests with the FHWA Division Administrator. 
A field report will no longer be required. Instead, a damage survey 
summary report is to be prepared which will provide a factual basis for 
the FHWA Division Administrator to make a determination that serious 
damage has occurred to Federal-aid highways. The damage survey summary 
report should include by political subdivision or other recognized 
geographic boundaries, a description of the types and extent of damage 
to highways and a preliminary estimate of cost of restoration or 
reconstruction of damaged Federal-aid highway in each jurisdiction. Use 
of the ``Quick Release'' method for an ER application and determination 
will also be incorporated into the procedures.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies 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 the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated 
that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These 
proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any 
sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere 
with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not 
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs. This rulemaking proposes to amend current 
regulations implementing the emergency relief program to revise the ER 
eligibility threshold established 10 years ago, as well as to 
incorporate changes made to clarify the guidance on the ER program. It 
is not anticipated that these changes would affect the total Federal 
funding available under the ER program. Consequently, a full regulatory 
evaluation is not required.

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. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that this 
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    The economic impact on States and local jurisdictions would be 
minimal because the increase in threshold value is kept at a minimum 
level only to account for inflation based on the increase in the 
composite index for Federal-aid highway construction from 1987 to 1997. 
These amendments clarify and simplify procedures used for providing 
emergency relief assistance to States in accordance with the existing 
laws, regulations and guidance. The ER funds received by the States are 
not significantly affected by this final rule. In any event, States are 
not included in the definition of ``small entity'' set forth in 5 
U.S.C. 601. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the purposes of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4), the FHWA must prepare a budgetary impact statement on any 
proposal or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result 
in estimated annual costs to State, local or tribal government of $100 
million or more. The Congressional Budget Office has also concluded 
that Pub. L. 105-117 would impose no Federal mandates, as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and would impose no significant costs 
on State, local, or tribal government. The FHWA concurs in that 
conclusion, and does not intend to impose any duties upon State, local, 
or tribal governments beyond those prescribed by Pub. L. 105-117.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and 
it has been determined this action does not have a substantial direct 
effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that would limit 
the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this document 
directly preempts any State law or regulation.

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 proposed action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has 
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of 
the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of

[[Page 25444]]

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN 
number 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 668

    Emergency relief program, Grant programs-transportation, Highways 
and roads.

    Issued on: April 25, 2000.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends title 23, Code 
of Federal Regulations, part 668 as set forth below:

PART 668-- EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for part 668 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101, 120(e), 125, and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b)

Subpart A--Procedures for Federal-Aid Highways

    2. Section 668.103 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
term ``Betterments'', and by amending the term ``Emergency repairs'' by 
revising paragraph (3) to read as follows:


Sec. 668.103  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Betterments. Added protective features, such as rebuilding of 
roadways at a higher elevation or the lengthening of bridges, or 
changes which modify the function or character of a highway facility 
from what existed prior to the disaster or catastrophic failure, such 
as additional lanes or added access control.
* * * * *
    Emergency Repairs * * *
    (3) Restoring essential traffic.
* * * * *


Sec. 668.105  [Amended]

    3. Section 668.105(j), is amended by removing the figure ``$500,000 
and adding in its stead the figure ``$700,000'' and by moving the term 
``FHWA Administrator'' and adding the term ``FHWA Division 
Administrator.''
* * * * *


Sec. 668.107  [Amended]

    4. Section 668.107(b) is amended by removing the last sentence.
* * * * *
    5. Section 668.109 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), 
introductory text, (b)(6), (b)(8), (c)(2)(i) and (iii), (c)(8), and (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 668.109  Eligibility.

    (a) The eligibility of all work is contingent upon approval by the 
FHWA Division Administrator of an application for ER and inclusion of 
the work in an approved program of projects.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Betterments, only where clearly economically justified to 
prevent future recurring damage. Economic justification must weigh the 
cost of betterment against the risk of eligible recurring damage and 
the cost of future repair;
* * * * *
    (8) Raising the grades of critical Federal-aid highways faced with 
long-term loss of use due to basin flooding as defined by an 
unprecedented rise in basin water level both in magnitude and time 
frame. Such grade raises are not considered to be a betterment for the 
purpose of 23 CFR 668.109(b)(6); and
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Repair of surface damage to any public road caused by traffic 
making repairs to Federal-aid highways.
* * * * *
    (iii) Repair of surface damage to Federal-aid highways caused by 
vehicles responding to a disaster; provided the surface damage has 
occurred during the first 60 days after a disaster occurrence, unless 
otherwise approved by the FHWA Division Administrator.
* * * * *
    (8) Other normal maintenance and operation functions on the highway 
system including snow and ice removal; and
* * * * *
    (d) Replacement of a highway facility at its existing location is 
appropriate when it is not technically and economically feasible to 
repair or restore a seriously damaged element to its predisaster 
condition and is limited in ER reimbursement to the cost of a new 
facility to current design standards of comparable capacity and 
character to the destroyed facility. With respect to a bridge, a 
comparable facility is one which meets current geometric and 
construction standards for the type and volume of traffic it will carry 
during its design life. Where it is neither practical nor feasible to 
replace a damaged highway facility in kind at its existing location, an 
alternative selected through the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process, if of comparable function and character to the 
destroyed facility, is eligible for ER reimbursement.
* * * * *

    6. Section 668.111 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 668.111  Application procedures.

    (a) Notification. As soon as possible after the disaster, the 
applicant shall notify the FHWA Division Administrator of its intent to 
apply for ER funds.
    (b) Damage survey. As soon as practical after occurrence, the State 
will make a preliminary field survey, working cooperatively with the 
FHWA Division Administrator and other governmental agencies with 
jurisdiction over eligible highways. The preliminary field survey 
should be coordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
work, if applicable, to eliminate duplication of effort. The purpose of 
this survey is to determine the general nature and extent of damage to 
eligible highways.
    (1) A damage survey summary report is to be prepared by the State. 
The purpose of the damage survey summary report is to provide a factual 
basis for the FHWA Division Administrator's finding that serious damage 
to Federal-aid highways has been caused by a natural disaster over a 
wide area or a catastrophe. The damage survey summary report should 
include by political subdivision or other generally recognized 
administrative or geographic boundaries, a description of the types and 
extent of damage to highways and a preliminary estimate of cost of 
restoration or reconstruction for damaged Federal-aid highways in each 
jurisdiction. Pictures showing the kinds and extent of damage and 
sketch maps detailing the damaged areas should be included, as 
appropriate, in the damage survey summary report.
    (2) Unless very unusual circumstances prevail, the damage survey 
summary report should be prepared within 6 weeks following the 
applicant's notification.
    (3) For large disasters where extensive damage to Federal-aid 
highways is readily evident, the FHWA Division Administrator may 
approve an application under Sec. 668.111(d) prior to submission of the 
damage survey summary report. In these cases, an abbreviated damage 
survey summary report, summarizing eligible repair costs by 
jurisdiction, is to be prepared and submitted to the FHWA Division 
Administrator after the damage inspections have been completed.

[[Page 25445]]

    (c) Application. Before funds can be made available, an application 
for ER must be made to, and approved by the FHWA Division 
Administrator. The application shall include:
    (1) A copy of the Governor's proclamation, request for a 
Presidential declaration, or a Presidential declaration; and
    (2) A copy of the damage survey summary report, as appropriate.
    (d) Approval of application. The FHWA Division Administrator's 
approval of the application constitutes the finding of eligibility 
under 23 U.S.C. 125 and shall constitute approval of the application.

    7. Section 668.113 is amended in paragraph (a), last sentence, by 
removing ``field report'' and adding ``damage survey summary report'', 
and by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 668.113  Program and project procedures

* * * * *
    (b) Project procedures. (1) Projects for permanent repairs shall be 
processed in accordance with regular Federal-aid procedures. In those 
cases where a regular Federal-aid project in a State similar to the ER 
project would be handled under the project oversight exceptions found 
in title 23, United States Code, the ER project can be handled in a 
similar fashion subject to the following two conditions:
    (i) Any betterment to be incorporated into the project and for 
which ER funding is requested must receive prior FHWA approval; and
    (ii) The FHWA reserves the right to conduct final inspections on 
all ER projects. The FHWA Division Administrator has the discretion to 
undertake final inspections on ER projects as deemed appropriate.
* * * * *
    (3) Emergency repair meets the criteria for categorical exclusions 
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117 and normally does not require any further 
NEPA approvals.

[FR Doc. 00-10780 Filed 5-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P