[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63539-63543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 650

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA--2000-7122]
RIN 2125-AE88


Discretionary Bridge Candidate Rating Factor

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the regulation on the discretionary 
bridge program rating factor in order to incorporate several 
administrative considerations that have proven effective in the project 
selection process and to update the rating factor formula to reflect 
the most current highway system designation. The changes make the 
selection process easier for the FHWA to administer and the application 
process easier for the States to understand. Except for the formula 
change for defense highway status, these changes only incorporate 
selection procedures that have been used effectively for many years. In 
addition, formerly designated defense highway bridges are included in 
the national highway system designation, so the formula change will 
have minimal impact. None of the changes have an appreciable effect on 
either program eligibility or the application process.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 14, 2002.

[[Page 63540]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven L. Ernst, Office of Bridge 
Technology, 202-366-4619, or Mr. Steven Rochlis, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, 202-366-1395, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e. t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resources locator (URL): 
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
year. Please follow instructions online for more information and help.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded 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 Office of the Federal Register's home page at 
http://www.archives.gov and at the Government Printing Office's web 
page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    This rule implements 23 U.S.C. 144(g), as amended by sections 1109 
and 1311 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1988). Section 161 of the 
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), Public Law 97-
424, 96 Stat. 2097, at 2135, directed the Secretary of Transportation 
(Secretary) to establish a rating factor for each discretionary bridge 
program candidate based on seven specific items. Section 1311 of the 
TEA-21, as added by Public Law 105-206, 112 Stat. 836 (1998), requires 
the Secretary to establish criteria for all discretionary programs, 
including the discretionary bridge program. On November 17, 1983, using 
the criteria from the STAA, the FHWA issued a final rule on the 
discretionary bridge regulations (48 FR 52292).
    The funding for the discretionary bridge program is derived from 
contract authority for the bridge program provided in section 
1101(a)(3) of the TEA-21. The allocation of the discretionary bridge 
funding by fiscal year for the discretionary bridge program is codified 
at 23 U.S.C. 144(g)(1).
    This final rule is based on the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) published on January 22, 2002, at 67 FR 2837 where the FHWA 
requested comments on proposed revisions to the regulation on the 
discretionary bridge program rating factor. This final rule is based on 
the NPRM and all comments received in response to the NRPM.
    These revisions in this final rule incorporate several 
administrative considerations that have proven effective in the project 
selection process and will update the rating factor formula to reflect 
the most current highway system designation. These changes will:
    (1) Require that candidate projects be ready to begin construction 
in the fiscal year in which funds are available for obligation. This 
will incorporate the administrative practice that has proven effective 
to provide that candidate projects are sufficiently developed and ready 
for construction and that funds are used in a timely manner. Projects 
that are not ready for construction may languish for years, 
encountering design, environmental, or funding problems that tie up 
scarce Federal funding and deny funding for other projects which are 
ready to build.
    (2) Permit additional funds contributed from local, State, county, 
or private sources or donations from third parties which reduce the 
total cost or Federal contribution to a project to be used to reduce 
the total cost for use in the rating factor formula. Reducing the total 
project cost with additional State, local or third party contributions 
provides an efficient and equitable assessment of the non-Federal 
participation, over and above the usual State match. This also 
continues the FHWA commitment to provide an accurate cost-benefit 
analysis of candidate projects.
    (3) Disallow any discretionary allocation to a State that has 
transferred Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program funds 
to other categories of Federal funding in the previous fiscal year. 
Transferring bridge funds to other categories is an indication that a 
State does not have a pressing need for bridge funds. This 
administrative requirement has been used effectively to assure that 
States first exhaust their regularly apportioned bridge funds before 
applying for discretionary funds.
    (4) Change the term ``D'' in the rating factor formula from defense 
highway status to ``N'' for national highway system status (NHS). This 
change is necessary because the defense highways are no longer a 
recognized national system. The factor ``D'' originated in section 161 
of the STAA of 1982, and data is no longer collected for this item. 
Using the national highway system status is a reasonable alternative, 
since the NHS is recognized as the nation's premier highway system in 
23 U.S.C. 103, and one criteria in the code is that the NHS ``meets 
national defense requirements.'' In addition, formerly designated 
defense highway bridges are included in the national highway system, 
and this change will have little effect on project rankings or 
selection.
    In light of the events of September 11, 2001, and the heightened 
awareness of security issues, we have determined that discretionary 
bridge funds could be used for security improvements on eligible 
bridges.

Discussion of Comments

    In response to the NRPM published on January 22, 2002, at 67 FR 
2837, we received six comments to the docket. These comments were from 
three State DOTs, one city DOT, and two private individuals. The 
following is a summary and discussion of these comments:
    One commenter suggested that the FHWA reduce the requirement that 
the cost of one bridge must be $10 million to be eligible. This is a 
statutory requirement and cannot be changed by regulation.
    There were four comments concerning the proposal to disallow any 
discretionary allocation to a State that has transferred its Highway 
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program funds to other categories 
of Federal funding in the previous fiscal year. Two commenters 
supported the proposed change, and two commenters considered the change 
overly restrictive. We feel that transferring bridge funds to other 
categories is an indication that a State does not have a pressing need 
for bridge funds, and that this requirement is therefore not overly 
restrictive.
    There were five comments concerning the change of the term ``D'' in 
the rating factor formula from defense highway status to ``N'' for 
national highway system status (NHS). Three commenters supported the 
change. One commenter suggested using the strategic highway network 
(STRAHNET) indicator to replace the term ``D.'' One commenter suggested 
that no distinction be made between NHS and non-NHS bridges. One 
commenter suggested that bridges over the NHS should also be considered 
in this term. We believe that using the STRAHNET indicator is overly 
restrictive and that the change to use the NHS for this term is 
sufficiently broad to meet national defense requirements.
    There were four comments questioning the clarity of the use of the 
words ``leveraged funds'' as a means to reduce the total project cost 
for use in the rating factor formula. Three commenters supported the 
change. One comment thought that this change

[[Page 63541]]

would allow the use of ``creative financing'' or ``Federal innovative 
financing techniques.'' We agree that the use of the term ``leverage'' 
requires clarification. It is the FHWA's intent that only funding or 
contributions from State, county, local, or private sources be 
considered as a special consideration under Sec.  650.709. These 
additional funds or contributions must be non-Federal. This final rule 
clarifies that the FHWA's intent is to give consideration to additional 
non-Federal contributions made to a project by the project sponsor or 
third parties. One commenter in support of using leveraged funds 
suggested that the FHWA add a term to the formula to reflect the 
change. The FHWA concluded that this change would over-complicate the 
formula, and therefore the formula will not be changed, but additional 
contributions from non-Federal sources will be allowed to reduce the 
total project cost to compute the rating factor.
    There were two comments about the requirement that projects be 
ready for construction within the fiscal year for which funds are 
requested. Both of these commenters indicated that the term ``ready for 
construction'' is not well defined and may be overly restrictive. On 
the contrary, it is our intent that projects be ready to advertise for 
bids and that funds be obligated within the fiscal year for which such 
funds are requested. Additionally, the term ``ready for construction'' 
is meant to be the least restrictive way to capture this intent.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 650.703 Eligible Projects

    Paragraph (b) is revised to require that only those projects not 
previously selected which will be ready to begin construction in the 
fiscal year in which funds are available for obligation will be 
eligible for funding. This incorporates the administrative practice 
that has proven effective to provide that candidate projects are 
sufficiently developed and ready for construction and that funds are 
used in a timely manner. Projects that are not ready for construction 
may languish for years, encountering design, environmental, or funding 
problems that tie up scarce Federal funding and deny funding for other 
projects that are ready to build.
    Paragraph (c) is added to make any State that has transferred 
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation funds to other fund 
categories ineligible for following fiscal year funding. Transferring 
bridge funds to other categories is an indication that a State does not 
have a pressing need for bridge funds. This administrative requirement 
has been used effectively to assure that States first exhaust their 
regularly apportioned bridge funds before applying for discretionary 
funds.

Section 650.707 Rating Factor

    In paragraph (b) the term ``D'', ``Defense Highway System Status,'' 
is changed to ``N'', ``National Highway System Status.'' This revision 
brings the formula in line with the current definition of the Federal-
Aid Highway Systems found in 23 U.S.C. 103.
    Section 161 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 
(STAA) required the Secretary of Transportation to develop a selection 
process for discretionary bridges authorized to be funded under 23 
U.S.C. 144(g). Section 161 further outlined the seven criteria that 
must be considered in evaluating bridge eligibility. One of these seven 
criteria was the ``defense highway system status.''
    Created under the Defense Highway Act of 1941 (Public Law 77-295, 
55 Stat. 765), the Defense Highway System was designed to be a 
``strategic network of highways that conforms to routes designated on 
the diagrammatic map of principal highway traffic routes of military 
importance, dated October 25, 1940, revised to May 15, 1941, and 
approved by the Secretary of War.''
    Since the passage of the STAA of 1982, the Defense Highway System 
is now an element of the National Highway System, created by the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), 
Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914 (1991). Section 1006 of the ISTEA 
redefined the Federal-aid Highway System to include the Interstate 
System and the National Highway System. One of the components of the 
National Highway System is ``a strategic highway network consisting of 
a network of highways that are important to the United States strategic 
defense policy and that provide defense access, continuity, and 
emergency capabilities of the movement of personnel, materials, and 
equipment in both peacetime and wartime. The highways may be on or off 
the Interstate System and shall be designated by the Secretary in 
consultation with the appropriate Federal agencies and the States.'' 
(23 U.S.C. 103(b)(2)(D)).
    In comparing the components that make up the National Highway 
System to the elements of the former Defense Highway System, the 
``strategic network of highways'' is an essential element of both of 
these highway systems. Therefore, the elements of the former Defense 
Highway System make up one of the components of what is now referred to 
as the National Highway System. Consequently, by changing the 
definition of the factor ``D'' in the formula from the Defense Highway 
System Status to ``N'' for National Highway System Status, we do not 
change the original intent of the formula asestablished in the ISTEA.

Section 650.709 Special Considerations

    Paragraph (a) is revised so that additional funds or contributions 
made by local, State, county, or private sources may be used to reduce 
the total project cost to calculate the rating factor. Reducing the 
total project cost with these additional funds provides an efficient 
and equitable assessment of the non-Federal participation, over and 
above the usual State match. This also continues the FHWA commitment to 
provide an accurate cost-benefit analysis of candidate projects.
    Paragraph (c) is revised so that only those continuing projects 
which will be ready to begin construction in the fiscal year in which 
funds are available for obligation will be considered for funding. This 
extends the requirement established in section 650.703(b) so that 
previously selected projects must be ready for construction to the same 
extent as new projects. As with new projects, previously selected 
projects that are not ready for construction tie up Federal funds that 
can be used for ready-to-build projects.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. 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 nor 
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 will be minimal. These 
changes will not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the 
economy. In addition, these changes will 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. These proposed changes will not affect the total Federal 
funding available. 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

[[Page 63542]]

rule on small entities, such as city and county governments. The 
modifications are substantially dictated by the statutory provisions of 
23 U.S.C. and the TEA-21 and will substantially improve the selection 
process. Accordingly, the FHWA hereby certifies that 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 of 1995

    This rule will not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (2 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

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 
affect 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 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, 
dated November 6, 2000, and believes it will not have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and 
will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact 
statement is not required.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has 
determined that this rule does not contain collection of information 
requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in section 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 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

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 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 650

    Bridges, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soil conservation.

    Issued on: October 4, 2002.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends title 23, Code 
of Federal Regulations, part 650, subpart G as set forth below:

PART 650--BRIDGES, STRUCTURES, AND HYDRAULICS [REVISED]

    1. Revise the authority citation for part 650 to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(a) and (h), 144, 151, 315, and 319; 33 
U.S.C. 401, 491 et seq.; 511 et seq.; sec. 4(b) of Pub. L. 97-134, 
95 Stat. 1699 (1981); sec. 161 of Pub. L. 97-424, 96 Stat. 2097, at 
3135 (1983); sec. 1311 of Pub. L. 105-178, as added by Pub. L. 105-
206, 112 Stat. 842 (1998); 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48(b); E.O. 11988 
(3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 117); Department of Transportation Order 
5650.2, dated April 23, 1979 (44 FR 24678).


    2. Revise Sec.  650.703(b) and add Sec.  650.703(c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  650.703  Eligible projects.

* * * * *
    (b) After November 14, 2002 only candidate bridges not previously 
selected with a computed rating factor of 100 or less and ready to 
begin construction in the fiscal year in which funds are available for 
obligation will be eligible for consideration.
    (c) Projects from States that have transferred Highway Bridge 
Replacement and Rehabilitation funds to other funding categories will 
not be eligible for funding the following fiscal year.

    3. Revise Sec.  650.707(a) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  650.707  Rating factor.

    (a) The following formula is to be used in the selection process 
for ranking discretionary bridge candidates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC02.010


[[Page 63543]]



The lower the rating factor, the higher the priority for selection and 
funding.
    (b) The terms in the rating factor are defined as follows:
    (1) SR is Sufficiency Rating computed as illustrated in appendix A 
of the Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, USDOT/FHWA (latest edition); (If SR 
is less than 1.0, use SR=1.0);
    (2) ADT is Average Daily Traffic in thousands taking the most 
current value from the national bridge inventory data;
    (3) ADTT is Average Daily Truck Traffic in thousands (Pick up 
trucks and light delivery trucks not included). For load posted 
bridges, the ADTT furnished should be that which would use the bridge 
if traffic were not restricted. The ADTT should be the annual average 
volume, not peak or seasonal;
    (4) N is National Highway System Status. N=1 if not on the National 
Highway System. N=1.5 if bridge carries a National Highway System road;
    (5) The last term of the rating factor expression includes the 
State's unobligated balance of funds received under 23 U.S.C. 144 as of 
June 30 preceding the date of calculation, and the total funds received 
under 23 U.S.C. 144 for the last four fiscal years ending with the most 
recent fiscal year of the FHWA's annual call for discretionary bridge 
candidate submittals; (if unobligated HBRRP balance is less than $10 
million, use zero balance);
    (6) TPC is Total Project Cost in millions of dollars;
    (7) HBRRP is Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program;
    (8) ADT' is ADT plus ADTT.
* * * * *

    4. In Sec.  650.709, revise paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  650.709  Special considerations.

    (a) The selection process for new discretionary bridge projects 
will be based upon the rating factor priority ranking. However, 
although not specifically included in the rating factor formula, 
special consideration will be given to bridges that are closed to all 
traffic or that have a load restriction of less than 10 tons. 
Consideration will also be given to bridges with other unique 
situations, and to bridge candidates in States that have not previously 
been allocated discretionary bridge funds. In addition, consideration 
will be given to candidates that receive additional funds or 
contributions from local, State, county, or private sources, but not 
from Federal sources which reduce the total Federal cost or Federal 
share of the project. These funds or contributions may be used to 
reduce the total project cost for use in the rating factor formula.
* * * * *
    (c) Priority consideration will be given to the continuation and 
completion of projects previously begun with discretionary bridge funds 
which will be ready to begin construction in the fiscal year in which 
funds are available for obligation.

[FR Doc. 02-26130 Filed 10-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P